Anganwadi Workers Can Earn From Other Sources As Recompense From Anganwari Work Is Meagre: Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that Anganwadi workers can have a source of additional income apart from Anganwari work. The Bench stated that it is not possible for Anganwadi workers to sustain themselves or their families from the salary earned by them as Anganwari workers and having more sources of income won't...
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain has held that Anganwadi workers can have a source of additional income apart from Anganwari work. The Bench stated that it is not possible for Anganwadi workers to sustain themselves or their families from the salary earned by them as Anganwari workers and having more sources of income won't be unnatural.
BACKGROUND
The Respondent, an Anganwadi worker applied for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female) in the Department of Women and Child Development conducted by Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (Petitioner). The total number of vacancies was 290 out of which 75% of the seats were reserved for direct recruitment and 25% was reserved for women Anganwadi workers with a service of ten years and a matriculation degree.
After clearing some stages of the examination process, the Respondent was notified on16 August 2019 about her candidature being rejected due to being over-age. The certificate of the Respondent concerning her experience as an Anganwari Worker was not verified and accordingly her candidature was rejected. She challenged the rejection in the Central Administrative Tribunal stating that the Petitioners (DSSSB) had cancelled the candidature based on production of two certificates by the Respondent, one as an Anganwari Worker from 14-05-1997 to 18 -07-2007 and the other from the New Indian Educational and Cultural Society from 25-05-2000 to 08-02-2007. On the other hand, DSSSB asserted that one of the certificates must have been made up by the Respondent as it overlapped the time-period of another certificate. The Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Respondent had worked at both the places and had also clarified the same explaining the reason for having two certificates. He argued before the Tribunal that since the post of an Anganwadi Worker was not a civil post, the Respondent could render her services for a few hours only and had the time to also serve in an NGO. He contended that working elsewhere did not prevent the Respondent to work in the NGO.
Satisfied with the contentions, the Tribunal held both the certificates to be correct and observed that the Respondent was entitled to get the age relaxation in terms of the advertisement for the post. It directed DSSSB to verify the certificate and appoint the Respondent for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female).
DSSSB approached the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 11 August 2023.
Findings of the Court:
The Court held that the only ground taken by the Petitioners was the production of two certificates out of which, the certificate issued by the New Indian Educational and Cultural Society overlapped with the period covered by the certificate of Anganwari experience. The Petitioners had not questioned the Respondent's experience as an Anganwari worker from 14 May 1997 to 18 July 2007.
The Court perused the Counter Affidavit filed by the Petitioners (DSSSB) before the Tribunal which stated that the Respondent produced two experience certificates which ran concurrent to each other. It was stated by the Petitioners that it was not possible to have two work experience in different fields at the same point of time. Moreover, the Petitioners stated that none of the certificates could have been considered by DSSSB because it was evident that both the certificates could not be obtained for the same period of time.
In addition to these assertions, the Petitioners had also stated that even after the age relaxation as per the Advertisement, the Respondent was over-age by more than four years and the relaxation notice was accordingly issued. It was stated by the Counsel for the Petitioners that the Anganwadi certificate was produced at a later stage and thus the period of time mentioned in such certificate could not have been considered.
On perusal of the Counter Affidavit of the Petitioners before the Tribunal, the Court observed that the Anganwadi experience certificate was provided by the respondent as was required. Furthermore, the details of work experience were uploaded by the Respondent and were examined in detail. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel for Petitioner regarding the late production of the certificate was rejected.
Additionally, the Court held that the remuneration received by Anganwadi Workers is meagre and the workers often struggle to sustain themselves or their families. Therefore, it would be unjust for them to offer their services full time even after the Anganwari work is over. The Court held that it is justified if the Anganwari workers take up some more work in order to have an additional income apart from what they are paid from the Anganwari work.
Making these observations, the Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus PARMILA DEVI
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1131
Counsel for Petitioners: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC with Mr. N. K Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Devesh Singh and Mr. Shreeraj Singh, Advs.