Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Forida Begum Laskar, D/o. Ali Aktar Laskar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, to the Govt. of Assam, Social Welfare Deptt. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 7366 of 2017
Decided On : 22-04-2024
For the Petitioners: Shri J.U.N.M. Laskar.
For the Respondents: Shri R. Dhar, GA, Assam.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that before any adverse action is taken by an authority, the incumbent is required to be given a notice and opportunity.
Headnote:
Appointment - Anganwadi Workers - [2009 Recruitment Process, Anganwadi Workers (AWW) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWH) - Communication dated 27.07.2009, Speaking Order dated 24.07.2012, Impugned Order dated 22.05.2017 - Sections related to appointment and termination of services]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in 2009 but were not paid honorarium. The Director of Social Welfare later directed for termination of their appointments due to anomalies in the appointment process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the petitioners' services without giving them any opportunity was not permissible under the law. It set aside the impugned order and directed that if the appointments were not in accordance with the law, any decision to terminate their services should be preceded by an opportunity to the petitioners. It also directed payment of honorarium for the period of their service.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the termination of the petitioners' appointments without giving them an opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that before any adverse action is taken by an authority, the incumbent is required to be given a notice and opportunity. It also emphasized that even if there were misinterpretations regarding the status of the Anganwadi Centre, the petitioners were entitled to be given an opportunity before any adverse action.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the impugned order was set aside and the court directed that if the appointments were not in accordance with the law, any decision to terminate their services should be preceded by an opportunity to the petitioners. It also directed payment of honorarium for the period of their service.
Heard Shri J.U.N.M. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned State Counsel representing all the respondents.
2. The present case has a chequered history including a number of previous litigations.
3. The facts projected is that pursuant to a recruitment process in the year 2009, the petitioners who are 6 (six) in numbers were selected and appointed on 13.08.2010 in the following Anganwadi Centres :
(i) 107 No. Laskarani Anganwadi Centre;
(ii) 111 No. Adhargram Karoikandi Anganwadi Centre and;
(iii) 114 Khunjaw Basti Mamong Leikai Anganwadi Centre.
The appointments of the petitioners in the respective Centres were as Anganwadi Worker (AWW) and Anganwadi Helper (AWH). Since the honorarium of the petitioners were not paid, they had first approached this Court by filing WP(C)/1987/2012. The said writ petition was disposed of vide an order dated 25.05.2012 directing disposal of the representation filed by the petitioners. Subsequent thereto, a Speaking Order dated 24.07.2012 was passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Cachar whereby the claim of the petitioners were accepted and steps were said to be taken for release of the honorarium. The aforesaid Speaking Order was followed by a communication dated 31.07.2012 to the Director of Social Welfare for release of the honorarium.
4. As no action was taken, the petitioners had filed the second writ petition WP(C)/2242/2013 which was disposed of vide an order dated 31.05.2013. This Court had directed the authorities to take necessary steps for release of the honorarium. The Director, Social Welfare, however vide the impugned order dated 22.05.2017 had directed for termination of the appointment pertaining to the aforesaid three Anganwadi Centres and also to take necessary action against the concerned District Social Welfare Officer, Cachar and the CDPO for misleading and giving wrong information.
5. Shri Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the aforesaid impugned order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the petitioners were not given any opportunity. It is further submitted that the induction of the petitioners in their respective services were done by following the due process of law. It is also submitted that the vacancies being properly notified and the petitioners being appointed in full-fledged Anganwadi Centre, there was no reason to deny their honorarium. The learned counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the communication dated 27.07.2009 has submitted that so far as an Anganwadi Centre is concerned, the same is required to be manned by one AWW and one AWH and for a Mini Anganwadi Centre, there would be one AWW. He clarifies that in the instant case, all the three Centres in question are full-fledged Anganwadi Centre wherein there is a requirement of one AWW and one AWH. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 29.11.2017 passed in this proceedings whereby the impugned order dated 22.05.2017 has been stayed.
6. The learned counsel however fairly submits that due to want of recent communications, he cannot submit with certainty as to whether the petitioners are still rendering their service.
7. Shri R. Dhar, the learned State Counsel, on the other hand has submitted that the Director, Social Welfare had the occasion to deal with the matter for the first time only during passing of the impugned order dated 22.05.2017 when the records were properly verified. He submits that it was at that point of time that the anomalies were noticed and also the role played by the concerned District Social Welfare Officer, Cachar and the CDPO. He points out that apart from the direction to terminate all appointments in the concerned three Anganwadi Centres, action against the concerned District Social Welfare Officer, Cachar and the CDPO was also directed. The learned State Counsel submits that the appointments of the petitioners being done without following the due proc
