IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.440 of 2008 Date of decision 22.4.2008 Smt. Sita Devi Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Bimal Gupta and Mr.Karan Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr.R.M.Bisht and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner as well as respondent No.2 herein, applied for the post of Anganwari Helper at Anganwadi Centre Manwana, Gram Panchayat Salwana, Child Development Project, Sunderangar. Interviews for the post were held on 3.8.2007. The petitioner was selected and offered appointment as Anganwardi Helper on 10.8.2007. Aggrieved against the selection of the petitioner, respondent No.2 filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, which was rejected on 3.9.2007. 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed second appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The claim of the respondent No.2 was that she being a widow, not receiving any family pension should have been awarded 2 marks in terms of clause 7.2(c) of the guidelines, for appointment of Anganwari Helpers which reads as follows: “c) 2 marks for State Home/Balika Asharam Inmates/Orphans/Widows/Destitute provided that these additional 2 marks will not be given to those widows who are obtaining family pension from the govt.” The learned Divisional Commissioner held that the petitioner was a widow, and therefore, entitled for two marks and has therefore set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed the Selection Committee to review the matter after giving two marks to respondent No.2. This order is under challenge before us in this writ petition. We have heard Shri Bimal Gupta and Sh.Karan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and Sh.B.C.Negi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. In reply to the writ petition, the respondent No.2 has clearly stated that she is only in receipt of pension payable to the widow which was previously Rs.200/- p.m. and now Rs.300/- per month. She has in unambiguous terms stated on affidavit that she is not in receipt of any family pension. All widows except those receiving family pension are entitled to grant of 2 marks in terms of Clause 7.2 (c) quoted here in above. Pension payable to widows under a welfare scheme is not family pension. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner. The petition is rejected. However, in case the petitioner produces documentary proof before the Selection Committee that the respondent No.2 is in receipt of family 3 pension then the Selection Committee may again consider the question whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to 2 marks or not. The respondents are directed to ensure that the entire selection process is completed latest by 30th June, 2008. Since the petitioner is already working, therefore to protect the interest of the children we direct that the petitioner shall continue to work as Anganwari helper in Anganwari Centre, Manwana and she be paid till further selection and fresh appointment is made. Petition disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 22, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.