IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19509 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ FATHIMA P.S., PARAMBIL HOUSE, SANTHANPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, ANGANWADI WORKER, THOTTIKKANAM ANGANWADI, SANTHANPARA. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, NEAR BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, DEVIKULAM. 2. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. GIRIESWARI, POOVATHINGAL, SANTHANPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, SANTHANPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.19509 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in Thottikanam Anganwadi in Santhanpara Grama Panchayat by the Child Development Project Officer by transfer on 11.6.2008, as evidenced by Exhibit-P1. Petitioner submits that she has been working as Anganwadi Worker for the last 13 years. She was at Thalakulam for more than 8 years and based on a request made to the 1st respondent on 7.11.2006 for a posting in Thottikanam Anganwadi, she was given a posting. Her grievance is that she has not been permitted to join duty by the 4th respondent, who, according to the petitioner is working on a temporary basis. Though she filed Exhibit-P3 representation since no action was taken, she has approached this Court. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that there is a dispute as to whether the 4th respondent is only a temporary worker or a permanent worker. Apparently, according to the 1st respondent, she is W.P ( C) No.19509 of 2008 2 only a temporary worker. In my view, the issue may be decided by the 2nd respondent, who is competent to take a decision on any proceedings issued by the 1st respondent. But as long as an order passed by the 1st respondent is in force, petitioner is entitled to join duty pursuant to the said order. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: i) Respondents 1 and 2 shall take steps to implement Exhibit-P1 and see that petitioner is permitted to join duty. This shall be done within one week from today. ii) Second respondent shall consider whether the 4th respondent is a temporary worker or a permanent worker and if the 4th respondent is also a permanent worker then suitable postings inter se the petitioner and 4th respondent may be passed by the 2nd respondent and the parties will abide by such orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.19509 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.19509 of 2008 4