NIRMLA DEVI, W/O SHRI PAWAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE GHADHOTHA, PARGANA AND TEHSIL BHARMAUR, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.12.2011, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, whereby he set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Dapota, Tehsil Bharmaur, District Chamba, on the ground that the husband of the petitioner, at the time when she was appointed, was working as a daily waged Beldar and was, in fact, regularized as Beldar in October, 2007. From the material on record, it is apparent that the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily waged Beldar from 1st May, 1998 to 30th September, 2007 and was regularized as such w.e.f. 1st October, 2007 in the pay scale of Rs. 2620 -4260/ -. Thus, prior to 2007, he was on daily wages and was earning Rs. 75/ - per day or Rs. 27,000/ - per annum. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner was definitely earning more than Rs. 12,000/ - per annum and to this extent, there is no error in this order.

(2.) MR . Anup Rattan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also raised an issue that the appeal was not filed within time since the selection was made on 24.07.2007 and the appeal was filed on 17.08.2007. No doubt, the time for filing an appeal is fifteen days but that fifteen days will have to be calculated from the date when there is knowledge/public notice about the order being passed. Merely because a decision is taken on the file will not amount to imputing knowledge to the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party can only come to know about the factum of the other side being appointed after some public notice is issued. Therefore, the question whether an appeal is within limitation or not is not only a question of law but a mixed question of fact and law. This question was not raised before the Additional District Magistrate and the question having not been raised before the Additional District Magistrate cannot be raised in the writ proceedings. Further, from the record it is apparent that the interview was held on 30.07.2007 and the date of appointment was 8.8.2007. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner that selection was made on 24.07.2007 is wrong. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.