The court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and providing an opportunity for post-decisional hearing, and held that the petitioner's failure to justify her unauthorized absence justified her disengagement.

ORDER :

1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

(i) to quash Order issued by respondent No. 2, Mission Director, ICDS, J&K, vide endorsement No. SDM/ICDS/262/2700-6 dated 26.02.2015 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001, being devoid of any merit; by issuance of writ of certiorari;

(ii) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001 and also to pay salary to the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker and also to give consequential benefits of service to the petitioner and to treat the period with effect from the date of disengagement from service to the date the petitioner re-joins the duty “on duty, by issuance of writ of mandamus;

(iii) to issue directions to the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Nathyal Ward No. 3 for which the petitioner is duly selected by issuance of writ of mandamus;

(iv) to declare Order issued by the respondent No. 2, Mission Director ICDS, J&K vide endorsement No. SDM/ICDS/262/2700-6 dated 26.02.2015 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001, being devoid of any merit, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and Rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus.

2. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner and stated in the petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Anganwari Worker after undergoing Anganwari training courses from 01.08.1986 to 31.10.1086, besides other training courses from time to time conducted in the year 1993 & 1994.

3. It is being stated that 13 years of services of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker came to be appreciated by the Child Development Project officer, Basohli (for short “CDPO”) and a certificate in this regard also came to be issued on 15.03.1999.

4. It is being next stated that the petitioner applied for maternity on 01.11.2000, whereafter during the currency of the said leave on account of an ailment, the petitioner which could not resume her duties but submitted an application for extension of her leave and after recovering from the said ailment the petitioner approached the respondents for resuming her duties on 14.09.2005, however, the CDPO Basohli did not allow the petitioner to join her duties, which compelled the petitioner to file a petition being SWP No. 1625/2005 before this Court, in response to which petition the respondents after being summoned, in their objections stated that the petitioner stands disengaged in terms of disengagement order dated 12.10.2001, as a result whereof the petition came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 23.03.2007 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition and challenge the said order of disengagement, whereafter the petition filed writ petition being SWP No. 861/2007 before this Court challenging her disengagement order dated 12.10.2001 which petition also came to be disposed of by this Court on 01.10.2013 and while quashing the disengagement order of the petitioner dated 12.10.2001, this Court provided a liberty to the respondent to pass appropriate order after following the procedure.

5. It is being next stated that the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order dated 01.01.2013 passed in SWP No. 861/2007 supra compelling the petitioner to file a cont