IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No.9213 of 2008 Date of decision : May 24, 2011 Kamla Himalvi and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Ramesh Thakur & J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. O.P. Negi vice Ms Karuna Machhan, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners are serving as Bal Sewikas, in regular pay-scale, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Vide Annexure A-3, Director of Social, Women & Scheduled Caste Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh, conveyed to the General Secretary, H.P. State Child Welfare Council and Secretary H.P. State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Khallini, Shimla, that 242 vacant posts of Supervisors were intended to be filled by direct recruitment. The letter said that the eligibility for the posts shall be as follows: Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… “Anganwari Worker who have passed Matriculation examination from a recognized Board/Institution and have 5 years service as such. OR Balwari teacher/Balsewika-cum-Craft Teacher who have passed Matriculation examination from a recognized Board/ Institution and have 5 years service as Balsewika and have obtained 11 months training; OR Balwari and Craft Teacher and training/certificate in tailoring and cutting from recognized Training Institute.” Several persons applied for the posts. Some of the candidates were Anganwari workers. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that Anganwari workers cannot be said to be in service, because they get only honorarium and not salary. Petitioners have sought direction to the respondents not to consider those candidates for appointment against the posts of Supervisors, who are not getting salary, in regular pay- scale. 4. Contention raised by the petitioners appears to be unfounded. Rules of recruitment nowhere provide that only those persons are to be considered for direct recruitment, who are serving as Anaganwari Workers or Bal Sewikas, etc. in a cadre and getting salary in a regular pay-scale. Also, I find no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that “service” means service for which salary is paid in a regular pay-scale and not service where only honorarium is paid. …3… 5. It has fairly been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Anganwari Workers are not appointed in any regular pay-scale, but they are paid honorarium only. If that is so, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the intention of the respondents is clear that Anganwari Workers, who are not paid salary, in any regular pay-scale, but honorarium only, are also to be treated in service, for the purpose of consideration of their eligibility for the posts of Supervisors. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed. May 24, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J