CWP No.1880 of 2008. 13.10.2008.Present: Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker. Immediately thereafter, the same was challenged by filing an appeal by respondent No.5. It was found by the Deputy Commissioner that the husband of the petitioner was functioning as Pradhan at the time of the appointment of the petitioner and was drawing Rs.1000/- per month as honorarium which amounts to Rs.12,000/- per annum. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the objection for the delay was not considered. From the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it does not indicate that any such preliminary objection was raised regarding the delay. The learned Advocate General informed that from the perusal of the order, it is crystal clear that now the husband of the petitioner is appointed as Junior Engineer. We find that there is nothing wrong in the two orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner wherein income of the husband of the petitioner was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per annum while working as Pradhan. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed and so also the pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. 13th October, 2008. (Kuldip Singh), J. (tr)