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.)