IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.602 of 2010 JARINA KHATUN, W/O SALAUDDIN R/O VILLAGE + P.O - NAWADA, P.S - JALALPUR, DISTRICT - SARAN. -------Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR ,THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY , WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE NIDESHAK, SAMAJ KALYAN BIBHAG, I.C.D.S. NEDESHALYA , BIHAR , PATNA 3. THE UP NIDESHAK KALYAN PADADHIKARI, SARAN DIVISION, CHAPRA. 4. THE ZILA PADADHIKARI, SARAN SAMAHARNALYA, (SAMEKIT BAL VIKASH SEVA KOSHANG), SARAN, CHAPRA. 5. THE BAL VIKASH PARIYOJANA PADADHIKARI (C.D.P.O), JALALPUR, SARAN. 6. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAMA KANT SINGH AT PRESENT MUKHIYA OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ NAWADA, SARAN AND RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O - NAWADA, P.S - JALALPUR, DISTRICT - SARAN. -------------------Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 3 15-04-2010 I.A. No.3054 of 2010. This is an application for condonation of delay. We have heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Regard being had to the averment made in the application for condonation of delay, delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. 2 I.A. is accordingly disposed of. L.P.A. No.602 of 2010. As we have condoned delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties it is finally heard. Heard Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mrs. Binita Singh, A.C. to A.A.G.III, for the respondent-State. In this intra court appeal assail is to the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.4165 of 2009 whereby the learned Single Judge has given the stamp of approval to the order dated 26.2.2009, whereby respondent no.4 has dispensed with the services of the appellant as Sahayika in Anganbari Kendra No.22, in Gram Panchayat Raj, Nawada, Saran on the ground that her attendance was irregular. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that order passed by respondent no.4 is absolutely cryptic, inasmuch as, it does not even indicate number of days 3 she has remained absent. That apart, order has not taken into consideration the show cause/explanation preferred by the appellant. In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, view expressed by the learned Single Judge is not correct and accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order as contained in Annexure-5. Needless to emphasize, it is open to respondent no.4 to proceed against the appellant as per law if advised. However, same shall be done after reinstating the appellant on the post of Anganbari Sahayika if it is still vacant. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)