IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8509 of 2000 BINDA RAI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5. 25.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for respondent no. 9. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika in the year 1983. It is her case of continuous discharge of duty till April 1997. When it is admitted position that she absented from 8.5.1997 to 25.8.1997. The fact that this absence was not authorized with proper approval is sought to be explained that the petitioner had sent representations of her illness through her father-in-law, a fact denied by the respondents. She subsequently resumed duty in August 1997 when she has been prevented from discharging duty from 24.7.1998 and respondent no. 9 came tobe appointed. The submission is that whether the instructions regulating appointment and termination of Anganwari Sevikas to be applicable as of 1995 or 1998, in either case for having absent beyond 15 days she was required to be given show cause notice and only thereafter could her services been terminated. The order being in violation of the principles of natural justice the same was required tobe set aside with an order of reinstatement. The counter affidavit of the respondents encloses Annexure ‘B’ an earlier show cause notice dated 13.1.1989 issued to the petitioner requiring her to explain her unauthorized absence. The appointment as an Anganwari Sevika is not an appointment in government service stands well settled both by this Court as well as Apex Court in the case reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka & others Vs Amirbi & others ) and (2004) 2 PLJR 833(Smt. Sajjan Devi & others vs State of Bihar & others). It is only a contractual appointment made by the government for better dissemination of its welfare schemes. Anganwari Sevikas are only agents of the Government for dissemination of the welfare scheme. Therefore, the satisfaction of their efficiency or inefficiency is that of the Government with regard to the implementation of the welfare scheme. If the Government is dissatisfied with the performance of an agent hindering its welfare scheme, there would be little occasion for the Court to interfere. If there be serious allegation of arbitrariness, malafide, nonest facts etc. the matter may be different. What natural justice shall mean, depends on the facts of each case. What may be the yardsticks of the natural justice applicable to a government servant will not necessarily be the same as applicable to an agent of the Government under a welfare scheme. In the facts of the case, materials available on record, the absence of the petitioner for more than three months is an admitted fact. Her earlier absence also when the government expressed its anguish of its welfare scheme being affected in the year 1989 is also not in dispute. To accept the submission of the petitioner in the aforesaid background of facts, to equate her with a regular government servant, and to impose the same standard of the principles of natural justice upon the respondents vis a vis the petitioner to this Court may affect the very welfare scheme of the government. This Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons as discussed above is not persuaded to simpliciter hold that the termination of the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sevika by order dated 7.10.1997 was illegal for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. There is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)