SUMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a chronic litigant. Since 2011, she has been filing one case after another by misrepresenting facts by involving without warrant the 7th respondent in wanton and unnecessary litigation. The dispute between the petitioner and the 7th respondent arises thus; there are three villages, namely, Nayagaon, Khajpur and Gurukul in Block Jhajjar, Jhajjar (Haryana). All these three villages constitute one single unit and have a common Panchayat known as Village Panchayat Khajpur. For the purpose of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), commonly known as Anganwari Programme, the said three villages have been taken together as one unit known as the Nayagaon unit covering the population of three villages.

(2.) The 7th respondent was appointed as an Anganwari Worker in 1996, which appointment order mentions the appointment for Nayagaon. Though the appointment was qua Nayagaon, but on verbal orders from the official respondents and seniors, the 7th respondent started covering the beneficiaries not only in Nayagaon, but also in Khajpur and Gurukul additionally since 1996 till date. In short, as population grew, the work increased and the 7th respondent was not physically able to cover the area completely though she tried her best to cover all beneficiaries. As work load increased, the necessity was felt for an additional centre at Khajpur.

(3.) The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 30.05.2011. Trouble started with this appointment, as the letter of appointment of the petitioner also mentioned that she was appointed for Nayagaon. There was overlapping of territory. The petitioner taking advantage of her letter of appointment refused to cover Gurukul and Khajpur claiming she was appointed for Nayagaon. If the two letters mention the same village that which should follow is that the prior appointment of the 7th respondent should give her a preferential claim, and so she claims.