IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.10306 of 2010
1. Ram Buchi Devi W/O Sri Ram Kripa Narayan Singh R/O Vill.-
Ankorhi, P.S.- Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar, Through Its Secretary Welfare Department
Govt. Of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Directorate, Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Kaimur At Bhabua
4. The District Program Officer, Kaimur At Bhabua
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Mohania, Distt.- Kaimur
At Bhabua
-----------
3. 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
This writ application was filed on 5.7.2010
after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate
General in accordance with the High Court rules.
The second copy was meant to facilitate the
expeditious filing of counter affidavit for disposal of
the matter. On 01.04.2011 adjournment was granted
to file counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has
been filed.
The petitioner, an Anganwari Sewika is
aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2010 of the
Director, I.C.D.S reinstating her in service but
declining to grant honorarium.
It is submitted that the petitioner came to
this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 7913 of 2008
questioning her removal from the post of Anganwari
Sewika of Akorhi Centre (Centre No. 26) ignoring the
2
report of the District Magistrate dated 25.11.2008 in
her favour. The Court directed the Director, I.C.D.S.
to examine her grievances. Relying upon the report
dated 25.11.2008 it is submitted that there were no
allegations with regard to closure of the Centre and
consequent non working by the petitioner but only
alleged irregularity for distribution subsequently
found to be incorrect.
Counsel for the State submitted that if the
petitioner has not worked in between the termination
and reinstatement she is not entitled to honorarium
on the principles of no work no pay.
There can be no quarrel with the very
broad proposition that if the petitioner did not
discharge duties in the interregnum she may not be
entitled to honorarium. But if it is found that the
termination itself was improper based on the enquiry
report of the respondents themselves, can the
liability for this wrongful termination be also
fastened upon the petitioner. The Court finds it
difficult to hold that the respondents are entitled to
the benefit of their own wrong order of termination.
The report of the District Magistrate dated
25.11.2008 makes it abundantly clear that the
petitioner was working as an Anganwari Sewika
3
throughout distributing ration. The allegations had
been made under a misconception.
It is unfortunate that the impugned order
dated 16.3.2010 cautions the petitioner when there
was no occasion for the same in view of the report of
the District Magistrate dated 25.11.2008 finding no
fault with her. Needless to state that any future
dereliction of duty is an entirely different matter.
The petitioner is not a government servant
claiming back wages. The principles applicable to
the same shall not appropriately govern the present
matter.
The order dated 16.3.2010 is set aside to
the extent that it denies honorarium to the petitioner
for the period between termination and
reinstatement. Let the arrears of honorarium be
paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order before the concerned respondents.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)