IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 3327, 3317, 3134 of 2009 and 7680 of 2010. Decided on December 7, 2010. 1. CWP 3327 of 2009 Sumitra & others v. Union of India & others. 2. CWP 3017 of 2009. Satya Ranta & others v. Union of India & others 3. CWP 3134 of 2009. Satya Devi & others v. Union of India & others. 4. CWP 7680 of 2010. Hema Rani & others v. Union of India & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners Sh. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India. For the State of H.P. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For private respondents in CWP 3327 of 2009 Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) These four writ petitions have been filed by certain women, who claim to have been selected as Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs for short), under a Scheme of the Government of India, known as National Rural Health Mission and adopted by the State Government. Their Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - case is that some of them are working as ASHAs, from 2006 and some from 2007, but now another Scheme has been introduced by the State Government, known as Mahila Gram Panchayat Swasthya Sahaiyika Scheme (MGPSSS for short) and when implementing its aforesaid Scheme, State Government intends to do away with the services of the petitioners. They have, therefore, approached this Court for (i) quashing the Scheme, introduced by the State Government, (ii) directing the respondents to continue with ASHAs, (iii) restraining the State Government from training Anganwari workers, for appointment to the posts under MGPSSS, (iv) restraining the State Government from appointing persons under MGPSSS, (v) directing the respondents to distribute first aid kits, received from the Central Government, to ASHAs, (vi) restraining the State Government and its functionaries, impleaded as respondents 2 and 4, from diverting the funds, received from Central Government, under National Rural Health Mission, towards its own MGPSSS and (vii) directing the respondents to pay the funds, received from the Central Govt. to ASHAs against their claims for TA/DA. 2. Writ petitions were filed, initially against the Union of India, State of H.P., Director, Health Services and Director, Social Justice. Persons, who have been selected to undergo training under MGPSSS, moved application for their - 3 - impleadment as respondents. Their applications were allowed and they have been impleaded as respondents. 3. State Government and its functionaries, in their reply, have stated that their scheme is distinct and separate from the Central Government’s Scheme and that their Scheme will be funded by the State Government itself and the funds of Central Government, for its National Rural Health Mission, will not be diverted for implementing its scheme (MGPSSS). 4. In view of the aforesaid reply of the State Government and its functionaries, no orders are required to be passed. The Scheme of the State Government does not affect the petitioners or their alleged status / claim as ASHAs, in any manner. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. December 7, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.