Chinta Kumari @ Chinta Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7993 of 2012 ====================================================== Chinta Kumari @ Chinta Devi Wife Of Sri Dipak Kumar Resident Of Village-Goraipur, Police Station-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur Bhabhua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 4.

The District Magistrate, Kaimur Bhabhua 5.

The District Programme Officer, Kaimur Bhabhua 6.

The Block Development Officer, Bhabhua, P.S. Bhabhua, District-Kaimur Bhabhua 7.

The Child Development Officer, Bhabhua, P.S. Bhabhua, District-Kaimur Bhabhua 8.

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Rooppur, P.S.-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur At Bhabhua 9.

Archana Kumari @ Anita Kumari Wife Of Sri Ajay Kumar Resident Of Village Goraipur, P.S.-Bhabhua, District-Kaimur Bhabhua ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sunil Kr. Mandal, SC 3 Mr. Bipin Kumar, AC to SC 3 For the Private res. : Mr. Bhala Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner outrightly submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law as this case is not maintainable in view

Patna High Court CWJC No.7993 of 2012(3) dt.12-12-2023 2/2 of the paragraph no. 4 of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Neetu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 20 which reads as follows:- "4. In our considered view, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a post having security of tenure or protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Considering the very nature of engagement which provides for honorarium, we are not of the view that in case the appellant still feels aggrieved, she may approach the Civil Court for damages. There is nothing at stake in such a scheme other than honorarium. For such contractual engagements the relief of reinstatement is not appropriate and even if there is breach of the scheme or any other principle of law, the claim should ordinarily be permitted, if found good on merits, only for damages."

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U