IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 624 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.3.2009. Smt. Jamuna Devi … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt vice Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent No. 4. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral): CWP No. 624 of 2009 & CMP No. 1115 of 2009: The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Bahal Kapahra in August, 2007. An appeal was filed against her appointment on 11.9.2007 purportedly by the present respondent No. 4. Thereafter, another appeal being No. J-104/2007 was filed by respondent No. 4. This was dismissed on the ground that the earlier appeal had already been dismissed in default. Thereafter, one more appeal bearing No. J-82/2007 was also dismissed on the same 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ground by the Deputy Commissioner on 26.9.2007. Aggrieved against these orders, respondent No. 4 filed a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner being Case No. 118/2007. It was contended by respondent No. 4 that the first appeal had not been filed by her but had been filed by some other person in her name. The Deputy Commissioner did not go into all these aspects but found that the appeal was hopelessly time barred and no application for condonation of delay had been filed. He also came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that the income of the present petitioner was more than the prescribed limit. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, a revision petition was filed and this revision petition has been allowed by highly cryptic order only on the ground that the Divisional Commissioner had taken into consideration the miserable condition of the petitioner/appellant. It is obvious that he could not have decided the appeal on merits but at best could have remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner Faced with this situation, Mr. Ramakant Sharma states that he has no objection if the petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner who may decide the same on merit. Consequently the impugned order of the Divisional Commissioner is set aside and the case is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the same on merits. We make it clear that the dismissal of the first appeal whether filed by respondent No. 4 or any other person, shall not be a bar to the Deputy Commissioner in deciding the appeal on its own merit. It is further made clear that the Deputy Commissioner shall not be bound by any observations made by the Divisional Commissioner and he shall decide the case strictly on its own merit. Till that time, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue to function as Anganwari 3 Worker. Parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, on 2nd April, 2009 and the Deputy Commissioner is directed to ensure that the appeal is disposed of on or before 30th April, 2009. CMP No. 1117 of 2009: Allowed. Caveat Petition No. 128 of 2009: Disposed of in view of the fact that the caveator has put in appearance. Copy dasti. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 12, 2009 Judge (BSS) 4