IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1430 OF 2000 Between: 1 The Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S. Pallpatta, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur Dist. 2 The Sub-Collector Tenali, Guntur Dist 3 The Collector Guntur Dist, Guntur ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 D.Maniyamma Anganwadi Worker Chinkapalem, Pallapatta Mandal Guntur Dist 2 Mullapudi Venkateswaramma Anganwadi Worker Chinkapalem, Pallapatta Mandal Guntur Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.8890/1998, Dt.04/08/1999 as it is illegal, contrary to law, ultravires and consequently quash the same and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner : G.P. FOR SERVICES - I Counsel for the Respondent No. : Mr. V.V. SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This Writ Petition is filed by the Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S. Pallapatta, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District, against the judgment dated 04-08-1999 in O.A. No.8890 of 1998 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. O.A. No.8890 of 1998 was filed by D.Maniyamma, Anganwadi Worker, respondent No.1 herein, challenging termination of her services as Anganwadi worker vide proceedings bearing No.52/SA/98 dated 06-11-1998 by the Child Development Project Officer, I.C.D.S., Pallapatta, who is petitioner No.1 herein. 3. The case of respondent No.1 is that she was appointed as Balwadi Teacher in 1976. On a requisition by the Block Development Officer, Ponnur, she worked as Balwadi Teacher till 1979 and sometime thereafter, on health grounds, she deserted that post in 1979 itself. Again in 1981, she was appointed as Balwadi Teacher at Bapatla and continued to work till 13-09-1984 and later that Balwadi center was closed by the Government. A scheme known as Integrated Child Development Scheme was started in 1974 and under that scheme, Anganwadi centers were started by the Government. Then, vide application dated 28-08- 1984, she expressed her willingness to work under I.C.D.S., Pallapatla Panchayat Samithi, I.C.D.S. The Integrated Child Development Officer, Pallapatla Panchayat Samithi vide proceedings in Rc.No.790/84 dated 19-09-1984 appointed respondent No.1 as Anganwadi worker on consolidated pay of Rs.125/- per month and she was posted at the Anganwadi center of Nizampatnam. She worked there till 30-11-1988 and transferred to Kortturjulu, where she joined on 01-12-1988. As salary was not paid from September, 1989 onwards and her services were terminated by order dated 19-07-1990, she filed O.A. No.52019 of 1990 and in that O.A. an interim order was passed by the Tribunal directing that if there is a vacancy in the relevant post, the applicant may be reinstated into service leaving it open to take disciplinary action against her and this interim order was made absolute by the Tribunal vide order dated 24-09- 1998. In spite of the above order by the Tribunal in O.A. No.52019 of 1990, the proceedings dated 06-11-1998, which are impugned in the O.A., were issued removing respondent No.1 from service alleging that she absconded from duties for two years. 4. The petitioners herein filed a counter in the impugned O.A. contending that a local enquiry was conducted with Grama Sarpanch, ZPTC Member and villagers at Nizampatnam on 30-07-1996, and thereafter, action was taken terminating the services of respondent No.1 as Anganwadi Worker. 5. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that the respondent No.1 was working since long time and by virtue of the judgment in O.A. No.52019 of 1990, she continued in service and without following directions issued in the above decision and without conducting proper enquiry, her services were terminated. 6. On behalf of the Government, It was contended that the respondent No.1 has committed several irregularities and after conducting the enquiry as per the procedure laid down, services of respondent No.1 were terminated by the proceedings dated 06-11-1998. 7. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by respondent No.1 holding that the enquiry, under which services of respondent No.1 were terminated, was conducted at the back of respondent No.1. 8. Now the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners is that as respondent No.1 is not a Government Servant, C.C.S. Rules are not applicable to her, therefore, as per the Rules applicable to the Anganwadi Workers, enquiry was conducted and her services were terminated. 9. With regard to non-service of notice, contention of the learned Government Pleader is that as respondent No.1 was not at all available at the Head Quarters or at her residence the notices sent were returned, as such, a paper publication was made in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper on 20-11-1996 and thereafter her services were terminated. There appears to be no dispute in this regard. Further, according to the petitioners, respondent No.1 has committed several irregularities and for that reason, she was removed from service. 10. Now the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that respondent No.1 is a low paid Anganwadi Worker getting a monthly salary of Rs.125/- at the relevant time, which is also not substantial from present standards, and the fact remains that no notice was served on her and there was no occasion for her to see the paper publication and she was working as Anganwadi Worker though not residing at the head quarters, as such, the contention that she was not available for service of notice is incorrect. 11. Considering all the circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that respondent No.1 is a low paid Anganwadi Worker and admittedly, no notice was served on her and there is no sufficient proof that she was not available at the Head Quarters, it is directed that respondent No.1 shall be taken into service as Anganwadi Worker afresh within two months from today. She shall be posted at any place within the jurisdiction of the appointing authority. It is needless to say that respondent No.1 is not entitled to any salary/compensation for the period of her absence from service on account of removal. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is ordered. ____________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J June 18, 2009. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/DS.