IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7200 of 2007 MAMTA DEVI wife of Sanjay Prasad @ Sipahi Rajak, resident of village Gomhari, P. O. Fesar, District- Aurangabad…. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Aurangabad. 4. The Block Development Officer, Aurangabad. 5. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad. 6. Sri Ajay Paswan at present Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Gamtari, P. O. + Vill. Fesar, Distt. Aurangabad. 7. The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 06.01.2010 The counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to implead the Director, ICDS, Government of Bihar, Patna as respondent no. 7. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has made prayer to the following effect:- i) For direction to the respondent-authorities to permit the petitioner to work uninterruptedly on the post of Anganwari Sevika of Gamhari Centre as she has been dully selected and appointed by the competent authority. ii) and further to cancel decision dated 6.11.2004 if taken by the respondent authority with regard to the 2 fresh selection of Anganwari Sevika as no notice has been issued to any public or petitioner about this meeting of same date. (iii) For further direction to the respondents to pay the due arrears of salary amounting to Rs.8,000/- which is still due without any valid reason and for the petitioner has already worked.” Apparently for the aforementioned reliefs, the petitioner had moved the Child Development Project Officer, Aurangabad as also Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Aurangabad as would be evident from Annexure- 4 series. It is only when no order has been passed by the Collector of the District, the petitioner has moved this court. The main contention of the petitioner is that after she was selected in prescribed manner for the post of Anganwari Sevika in respect of Gomhari centre in Fesar Gram Panchayat of Aurangabad District in the year 2002 and after she had continued to work till 20.10.2003 she had to proceed on leave on account of pregnancy and complications developed thereafter. 3 The petitioner is said to be absent from the duty from 20.10.2003 to 9.2.2007 inasmuch as she claims to have submitted her joining on 10.2.2007 vide Annexure- 5 to the writ application. It is the case of the petitioner that neither her joining has been accepted nor she has been allowed to work in a period of almost last three years but no selection or fresh appointment has been made on the post of Anganwari Sevika and some one else has been assigned to do the additional job of Anganwari Sevika of the centre in question. This Court is not aware as to whether for the post of Anganwari Sevika in question any service conditions has been laid by the Government. There is a provision for grant of maternity leave to the government servants. Even otherwise the Act of Parliament, namely, Maternity Act 1961 mandates grant of maternity leave subject to certain terms and conditions. This aspect of the matter therefore requires to be gone into by the Director, ICDS who by treating this case as an example may decide not only the grievance raised by 4 the petitioner but also he may go to issue instructions on the issue of grant of maternity leave to Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika after obtaining necessary order from the State Government keeping in mind that the entire concept of engagement of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika is confined to ladies only. That being so, this court would direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Director, ICDS who upon receipt of such representation would call for a report from the concerned Child Development Project Officer as also the Collector with regard to the present position and in case no fresh selection/appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been made he would proceed to decide in the light of orders of the State Government as to whether the claim of the petitioner for grant of maternity leave and/or any other leave for the aforesaid period is permissible. His such order must be a reasoned order and should be passed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner along with a copy of this order. 5 Let it be made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and therefore it would be entirely open for the State Government and its Director, ICDS in the Welfare Department to take a decision strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)