IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 8023 of 2008. Reserved on: 27.07.2010. Decided on 06.08.2010. _____________________________________________________ Smt. Poonam Kumari. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. N.D. Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Respondent No. 3, already ex-parte. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker vide appointment letter dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure A-1). She joined her duties on 02.12.1991 at Anganwari Centre, Dakolu, P.O. Kotighat, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla. She applied for medical leave for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2001 to 08.06.2001, 21.06.2001 to 30.06.2001, 01.07.2001 to 09.07.2001 and 10.07.2001 to 23.07.2001. She joined her duties on 16.08.2001. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide Annexure A-19, dated 25.09.2001. 2. Mr. N.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that neither any notice was issued to his 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. client nor any enquiry was instituted against her before issuing Annexure A-19, dated 25.09.2001. He then contented that his client has worked satisfactorily for a period of more than 10 years and was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has remained willfully absent after her marriage, the order dated 25.09.2001 is legal and in accordance with law. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker vide letter dated 28.11.1991. She resumed her duties on 02.12.1991. It is evident from Annexure A-1, dated 28.11.1991 that 15 days’ show cause notice was required to be issued before terminating the services of the petitioner. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner before the issuance of office order dated 25.09.2001 (Annexure A-19). The notice was required to be issued as per the appointment letter dated 28.11.1991, Annexure A-1. The only ground taken by the respondents for terminating the services of petitioner, is that the inspections were carried out on 17.11.1998, 19.11.1999, 29.05.2000, 14.06.2000 and 26.06.2001 at Anganwari Centre, Dakolu and the petitioner was found absent from duty. She was also asked to improve her work vide office orders dated 13.06.2001, 16.06.2001 and 22.09.2001. However, these letters were received back by the respondents with the remarks of the authorities that the petitioner was not residing in village Dakolu. The respondent No. 3 had also received a complaint dated 01.06.2001 against the petitioner. The primary ground taken in the complaint was that the petitioner remained absent from duty. It is also stated in the reply that since the petitioner was married in village Lathi, which is at a distance of 50 Km. from Anganwari Centre Dakolu, she was not performing her duties regularly at Anganwari Centre Dakolu. However, fact of the matter is that in this case, neither the petitioner was served a 15 days’ show cause notice nor any enquiry was held against her on the basis of complaint dated 01.06.2001. It was necessary for respondent No. 3 to hold an impartial and fair enquiry on the basis of the complaint after associating the petitioner. Petitioner is post graduate and it is also admitted fact that the petitioner has submitted application for medical leave, as noticed hereinabove. Petitioner has almost worked for 10 years when her services were terminated. In normal circumstances, her case was required to be considered for promotion to the post of Supervisor after completion of 10 years’ service. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, Annexure A-19, dated 25.09.2001 is declared null and void. Petitioner shall be deemed to be in continuous service. The respondents are also directed to consider her case for the post of Supervisor in accordance with law after completion of 10 years of service. The needful shall be done within a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 06, 2010. (bhupender)