Rajiv Sharma, J.@mdashPetitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Doughkhill on 09.08.2007. The income of the Petitioner was assessed to be at Rs. 7,000/- per annum as per Annexure P-2, issued on 11.05.2007. The appointment of the Petitioner was assailed by Respondent No. 5 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside the appointment of the Petitioner, by holding that her income was more than Rs. 8,000/- per annum. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, while setting aside the appointment of the Petitioner, has taken into consideration the income of her father-in-law. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala on 13.07.2009. Petitioner has also filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay was condoned and the appeal was heard on merits by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. He rejected the appeal on 23rd June, 2010.
2. Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the findings recorded by both the authorities below, are contrary to the evidence placed by the Petitioner before them. According to him, the income of the Petitioner has been wrongly assessed by including her name in the family of her father-in-law.
3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Anjali Soni Verma have supported the orders passed by both the authorities below.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
5. The State Government has issued a notification on 11th April, 2007, whereby guidelines have been prescribed for appointment of Anganwari Workers. According to paragraph 4(e) of the notification, dated 11th April, 2007, only those candidates belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004, were eligible. The maximum income prescribed was Rs. 8,000/-per annum to be certified/countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar. In the instant case, the income certificate has been issued by the competent authority vide Annexure A-2, whereby the income of the Petitioner has been assessed at Rs. 7,000/- per annum. Petitioner was not looked-after by her husband. She was constrained to move an application u/s 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The J.M.I.C.-I, Palampur has passed an order on 24.10.2007, whereby the Petitioner''s husband has agreed to pay Rs. 900/- per month towards maintenance. Petitioner''s husband has also instituted a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce in the month of July, 2009. However, fact of the matter is that the Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat has issued a certified copy of parivar register on 11th April, 2008, in which the Petitioner has been shown as member of the family alongwith her father-in-law. The Court is of the considered view that in view of the litigation between the Petitioner and her husband, she could not be treated as member of her husband''s family.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in Nirmla Devi v. The Secretary Social Justice Welfare and Education C.W.P. No. 3288 of 2009, decided on 17.05.2010, has held that separation of the family visualized in Clause 4(e) is only for the purpose of computation of income. Petitioner''s income was to be assessed independently of her father-in-law. The income certificate issued vide Annexure P-2, dated 11.05.2007 has not been set aside by any competent authority under the law.
7. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the appeal was barred by delay. The appeal, as per the amended provisions, was to be filed within a period of 15 days of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order on 24.10.2007 and the appeal was instituted on 13.07.2009. It was filed beyond the period of 15 days prescribed under the guidelines. 8. Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that his client has moved an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the appellate authority has condoned the delay. This question is no more res integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, cited hereinabove. The Division Bench of this Court in Nirmla Devi v. Secretary, Social Justice Welfare and Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh has held as under:
19. Another legal contention is as to whether the Appellate Authority has power to condone delay in filing appeal. The Guidelines provide a period of 15 days for filing an appeal. Being a statutory authority, in terms of the Policy Guidelines, the Appellate Authority does not have the power u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. No power is conferred also in the guidelines for condonation of delay. Therefore, he cannot enlarge the time, by condoning delay in filing the appeal. In other words, if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, it has only to be dismissed, since the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
8. In the instant case, the appeal was filed beyond the period 15 days and as per the ratio decidendi, the Appellate Authority has no power to condone the delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.
