A Panchayat-appointed pump operator is entitled to resume duty and receive honorarium from rejoining.

The petitioner’s husband was engaged as a Pump Operator for the Kamthana No. 2 L.I. Scheme under the Kaiyadepha Gram Panchayat in 2002. After his death on 14 April 2012, the Gram Panchayat passed Resolution No. 18 dated 16 April 2012, permitting the petitioner to take over and operate the pump in his place. The petitioner claimed that she performed the work and received honorarium until October 2019.

According to the petitioner, respondent no. 9 obstructed her from entering the pump house, took control of its keys, and prevented her from discharging her duties. She further alleged that the Panchayat authorities refused to sign her work reports, resulting in non-payment of honorarium from October 2019. Despite representations, no effective action was taken. The BDO subsequently issued a communication dated 22 December 2020 directing her to resume her duties.

The State respondents admitted that the petitioner had been engaged after her husband’s death and had received honorarium while performing her duties. However, they asserted that she was not submitting work reports and was not performing her responsibilities despite being requested to do so.

Respondent no. 9 denied that the petitioner had worked at the site and claimed that he had voluntarily operated the pump for the benefit of the villagers.

1. Whether the petitioner had been validly engaged as Pump Operator pursuant to the Gram Panchayat’s Resolution No. 18 dated 16 April 2012 and was entitled to continue discharging those duties?

2. Whether the petitioner was unlawfully prevented from performing her duties by respondent no. 9 and whether the official respondents were required to facilitate her return to work?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of wages or honorarium for the period during which she did not perform the duties of Pump Operator?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant appropriate relief, including a writ in the nature of mandamus, where the petitioner established an existing entitlement to perform a public function and the authorities failed to protect that entitlement.

The Court applied the principle that an administrative engagement supported by official records and admitted by the State cannot be displaced by a private individual without a lawful order or authorization from the competent authorities.

It also applied the general rule that wages or honorarium ordinarily depend upon performance of the assigned duties; accordingly, payment was not granted for the period during which the petitioner admittedly did not perform the work.

The Court relied on the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 16 April 2012, the petitioner’s prior receipt of honorarium, and the State respondents’ admissions to conclude that the petitioner had in fact been engaged as Pump Operator and had performed the work until October 2019.

Respondent no. 9 produced no document showing that he had been appointed or authorized by the Panchayat or any competent authority to replace the petitioner. His claim based on the alleged ancestral ownership of the land on which the pump house stood did not establish any legal right to interfere with the petitioner’s official engagement.

The Court also noted that the BDO’s communication directing the petitioner to resume work supported her case that her engagement continued and that the authorities were required to facilitate her functioning.

However, because the petitioner had not actually performed the Pump Operator duties after October 2019, the Court declined to award wages or honorarium for that period.

The Court directed respondent no. 4, the BDO, to permit the petitioner to resume her duties as Pump Operator within 15 days of the judgment and to pay her honorarium or wages at the admissible rate from the date she rejoined duty.

If respondent no. 9 obstructed her, the BDO was authorized to obtain police protection to enable her to discharge her duties peacefully.

The petitioner was not granted arrears for the period after October 2019 during which she had not performed the work.

The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.