LATA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi allowing the appeal of Respondent No. 4 Bhagyawati.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 4 Smt. Bhagyawati was appointed as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Sai -Noduan, District Bilaspur. Lata Devi, the present Petitioner challenged her appointment basically on the ground that the income of Bhagyawati and her husband from all sources was more than Rs. 12,000/ - per annum.

(3.) BE that as it may, from the facts established on record it is apparent that till July 2007 a sum of Rs. 8,304/ - per annum was being paid towards the Insurance premier of Lekh Raj husband of Smt. Bhagyawati. This is apparent from documents Annexure R -4/1 and Annexure R -4/2, which were documents Annexure R -4/4 & R -4/5 in the earlier writ petition. These documents show that from 2004 to 2007 a sum of Rs. 5496/ - per annum was being paid as insurance premium of one policy and from the year 2005 another policy was taken wherein the premium was of Rs. 2908/ - per annum. The explanation given on behalf of Bhagyawati is that this amount was being paid by her father. Such explanation cannot be accepted since in the policy the name of the insured is shown to be Lekh Raj. There is nothing to show that the said premium was being paid by the parents of Bhagyawati except the bald affidavit filed by her father.