1 wp533.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2006 Smt.Vijaya w/o Baswanappa Birajdar age 36 years, occupation : service, r/of Phulwadi, Post Andur Taluka: Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad. Petitioner versus The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Taluka and Dist. Osmanabad. Respondent ------- Shri Ashish Jadhvar, Advocate, holding for Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. ------- Corum: Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 14th July, 2011. Oral Judgment (Per : Smt. Mhatre, J.) 01. The petitioner in the present case was employed as Anganwadi Karyakarti in village Phulwadi, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad, from 18.6.1993. It appears that because of some complaints against her, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 23.4.2002. The petitioner submitted an application to the President, Panchayat Samiti and the Chief 2 wp533.06 Executive Officer, on 15.6.2002, requesting them to reinstate her in service. As they did not pay any heed to her request, the petitioner preferred a complaint bearing No. (ULP) 63/2003 before the Labour Court, Solapur under item 1(b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. On legal advice obtained by the petitioner, she withdrew that complaint on 11.11.2005, and challenged the order of termination of her services in the present writ petition. 02. We have perused the impugned order dated 23.4.2002. It indicates that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of complaints received from the villagers and because her services were found to be unsatisfactory. No explanation was called for, from the petitioner before her services were terminated. In our opinion, the impugned order is obviously an order issued for acts of misconduct by the petitioner. Therefore, such an order ought to have preceded by an enquiry. 03. Although the challenge in this petition is to an order passed in the year 2002, rule has been issued in 2007. 3 wp533.06 04. For the reasons stated in our judgement delivered today in writ petition No.521 of 2006, this petition is also allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is reinstated with continuity of service and fifty per cent of the back wages and all other consequential benefits. The back wages shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. 05. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp533.06