IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4404 of 2008 SUDAMA DEVI, WIFE OF MUSAI SARADAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ORALAHA, TOLA BAJITPUR, P.S. TRIBENIGANJ, DISTRICT SUPAUL. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL. 3. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, TRIBENIGANJ, DISTRICT SUPAUL. ----- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner :- Mr. B.N.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Saroj Sandilya, Advocate Mr. Bimal Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the State :- Mr. R.R. Tiwari, A.C. to A.A.G. 12 ----------- 2 18.4.2011 The petitioner claims that she should be paid her salary for the period 1.8.2001 to 31.5.2005 for working on the post of Anganwari Sahayika. For the centre in question, Dharamshila Devi was working as an Anganwari Sevika whereas Shakuntala Devi was working as an Anganwari Sahayika. Shankuntala Devi died on 6.11.1999. Thereafter it would appear from the report of the C.D.P.O., Triveniganj contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, the petitioner was working as an Anganwari Sevika on the directions of Dharamshila Devi. A stand has been taken on behalf of the State that the petitioner was not duly engaged or appointed to work on the said post. Subsequently a regular Anganwari Sevika has been engaged on 12.4.2005. This Court finds that it is quite strange that the C.D.P.O. did not take any action as it is presumed that he must have known that the Anganwari Sevika had died. A stand has also been taken that the petitioner cannot be paid her salary as an 2 Anganwari Sevika in view of the guidelines of the year 1998. Clause 16 indicates that in the absence of Anganwari Sevika, the Anganwari Sahayika will do all the works. During absence of either of the two the other person would perform the job. However, on perusal of the rules, it would appear that the manner of making appointment as laid down in the guidelines, the Anganwari Sevika cannot make any such appointment. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has undisputedly worked during the said period, I direct that by way of compensation, 60% of the salary due during the period, should be paid to the petitioner. This writ application is thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)