MUKHTARI KHATOON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the writ Court's order that she is not entitled for the salary/honorarium for the post of Anganbari Sewika.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant was that she was appointed as Anganbari Sahayika in Anganbari Centre at Pipradih-II [Code No.36] in the year 2006. On 24/7/2020, Lakhi Devi who was working as Anganbari Sewika relinquished the responsibility of Anganbari Sewika which was assigned to her and then the work of Anganbari Sewika was assigned to the writ petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Aditya Raman, the learned State counsel refers to clause 18 of the letter dtd. 2/6/2006 issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development to submit that the Anganbari Sahayika is mandated to administer the Centre in absence of Anganbari Sewika. The submission made on the basis of clause 18 is that the appellant is not entitled for difference in honorarium to the post of Anganbari Sahayika and Anganbari Sewika. To put it simple, the objection raised by the respondents is that the honorarium paid for the post of Anganbari Sewika cannot be paid to her even though the writ petitioner had worked as Anganbari Sewika.