IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16792 of 2009 1. BIMLA DEVI W/O LATE HARI KANT CHOUDHARY, R/O VILL- RAGHOPUR, P.S- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATEL SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFIER, ROSERA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR with CWJC No.16799 of 2009 1. JAYA DEVI W/O SRI VIJAY KUMAR THAKUR, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SRI VIJAY KUMAR JHA R/O VILL WESTERN TABHKA, P.S.BIBHUTIPUR, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER SAMASTIPUR 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER ROSERA, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR,DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BIBHUTIPUR,DISTT- SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 22.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners were terminated from the post of Anganwari Sewika by order dated 2.7.2009 of the District Magistrate on the ground that Centre No. 86 and 79 of which they were incharge respectively were found closed during investigation and no distribution was being made. Their appeal before the Commissioner against the 2 same has been rejected holding that there was no need to give any show cause notice to the petitioner in terms of the instruction of the State Government dated 10.10.2007 and 6.11.2007. Learned counsel for the State urges that the impugned orders called for no interference as the petitioners were not found to be discharging their obligations properly. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004(2) PLJR 833 dealing with the issue of termination of services of the Anganwari Sewika inter alia for not being present at the centre for distribution and the premises being found closed in Paragraph 14 of the judgment has held that even though Anganwari Sewika do not held a post under the government and cannot claim the same protection prior to removal as that available to Government servants, nonetheless, their services cannot be dispensed with expect after complying with the principles of natural justice which mandates giving a show cause to them even if the centre was found closed granting adequate opportunity to file a reply and after consideration of the same, or if any reply was not filed proceed with termination if so warranted. The impugned orders being in teeth of the Division Bench judgment of this Court are not sustainable. They are accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in law. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)