THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.976 of 2009 Dated: 8-10-2009 Between: Smt.Balla Rajyalakshmi S/o B.Apparao And another ….Petitioners A n d Sri Gopalakrishna Divedi District Collector, East Godavari District At Kakinada and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.976 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 04.03.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.5837 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.4452 of 2009. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein claim that they been appointed as Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi Helper respectively at Molettimoga Anganwadi Centre, East Godavari District and they have been discharging their duties. Their grievance is that despite of their discharging their duties as Anganwadi Worker and Helper, honorarium has not been paid to them. They assailed the action of the respondents herein, i.e., District Collector, East Godavari District and the Child Development Project Officer (ICDS) Project, Mummidivaram, East Godavari District in Writ Petition No.4452 of 2009. The petitioners also moved W.P.M.P.No.5837 of 2009 seeking an interim direction to the respondents for payment of honorarium. 3. This Court granted an interim order on 14.3.2009, which is as hereunder:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are still continuing as Anganwadi Worker and Helper respectively, but they are not being paid honororium. Such is the situation, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to pay honororium to the petitioners in case they are discharging the duties of Anganwadi Worker and Helper respectively”. 4. The contempt case has been filed by the petitioners complaining disobedience of the order dated 14.3.2009. 5. Notice before admission has been ordered on 24.7.2009. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. It is sworn to Smt.D.Radha Madhavi-2nd respondent herein. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not discharging the duties of the Anganwadi Worker and Helper and no activities are taken up at the centre situated at Molletimoga village. 6. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the counter affidavit, which reads as hereunder:- “ As per the Government of India Guidelines the most important Six Services i.e., Supplementary Nutrition Programme, Pre- School, Immunization etc are not given by the petitioners. The petitioners were selected as Anganwadi Worker and Helper and they were paid Honourarium upto August, 2008 and subsequently from September, 2008 they were not paid and due to political rivalry they were made to suffer by not providing Honourarium and they were willing to work wherever are hereby denied. The petitioners are provided posting in Molletimoga Anganwadi Centre with Code No.286. So they are expected to work as per the work entrusted to them. Till today no material has been produced by the petitioners to show that they have been attending to the said Centre and discharging their duties. The petitioners have not furnished the address in which place they started the Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner did not choose to file any material to show that they have been discharging duties before filing of this petition and so also after filing of this petition.” 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been duly appointed as Anganwadi worker and Helper by the competent authority and their appointment is in subsistence, but for village politics they are not permitted to discharge duties as Anganwadi Worker and Helper. 9. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not discharging the duties of Anganwadi Worker and Helper, and therefore, question of paying honorarium does not arise. 10. The factual aspect of the petitioners not discharging the duties of Anganwadi Worker and Helper is not disputed by the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Of course, it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are not permitted to work in the centre and the villagers refused to send their children to the centre. When the petitioners are not permitted to work, they have to work out their remedies by moving a separate application seeking necessary relief. 11. The direction given by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.5837 of 2009, dated 4.3.2009 is that the petitioners shall be paid honorarium in case they are discharging the duties of Anganwadi Worker and Helper respectively. When the centre itself is not working, the question of paying remuneration to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents had violated the orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.5837 of 2009 in W.P.No.4452 of 2009 dated 4.3.2009. 12. The Contempt Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed as redundant. No costs. _____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 08-10-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.976 OF 2009 DATED : 08-10-2009