Brij Bala v. Nitin Kumar Yadav And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 Brij Bala ......Petitioner Vs.

Sh. Nitin Kumar Yadav and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present :

Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishan Lal Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

**** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1.

The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in CWP-15126-2014.

2.

This Court had issued the following directions in CWP-151262014, vide its order dated 30.11.2022:- "6.

In the premise, even though the petitioner is praying for quashing of selection of respondent No.6, it would be too harsh on her and also would be travesty both on equity and justice at this stage to issue any directions to substitute the petitioner with respondent No.6, particularly in the light of the fact that there was no misrepresentation and/or any concealment on the part of respondent No.6. The fault entirely lies with the department, for which respondent No.6 cannot be made to suffer. In order to balance the equities, respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for

-2appointment as Anganwari worker by giving her benefit of her work experience after verification of the same from its own records and adjust her against any other vacancy, which may be available as on today. In case there is no vacancy available, she will be adjusted against next future vacancy becoming available.

7.

It transpires in the course of hearing, as has been apprised by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner continues to work as helper in Anganwari centre uninterruptedly ever since she had applied for the job of Anganwari worker and therefore, it is left open for the competent authority to consider her candidature on sympathetic ground whether the said post can be upgraded to that of Anganwari worker."

3.

In compliance of the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in CWP-15126-2014, reply by way of affidavit dated 15.01.2024 of Sh. Ayush Sinha, IAS, Additional District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 before the Registry. The same is taken on record. The relevant portion of the said compliance report is reproduced as under:- "4.

That in light of aforementioned order dt. 30.11.2022, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Court had disposed of the aforesaid petition CWP No. 15126 of 2014 with directions to the respondents "to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwari worker by giving her benefit of her work experience after verification of the same from its own records and to adjust her against any other vacancy, which may be available as on that day. In case there is no vacancy available, she will be adjusted against next future vacancy becoming available and to consider her candidature on sympathetic ground for the said post of Anganwari Worker whether the said post can be upgraded to that of Anganwari worker."

5.

That in view of submissions made above, it is submitted that since the date of order dt. 30-11-2022, vacancy for the post of 'Anganwari worker' has not been

-3published. Whenever vacancy for 'Anganwari worker' becomes available in future then candidature of petitioner will be considered.

6.

That in view of the facts submitted above, it is humbly submitted that there is no force and merit in the present petition as the order dt. 30-11-2022 has not been disobeyed. The deponent has not committed any act of commission and omission amounting to contempt of this Hon'ble Court. The deponent has highest regard for the order of this Hon'ble Court and cannot dream of disobeying the same."

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in CWP-15126-2014 has been complied with, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.

In view of the above, since order dated 30.11.2022 passed by this Court in CWP-15126-2014 has already been complied with, therefore, the present contempt is purged and rule stands discharged. 6.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 25.09.2025 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No