The judgment establishes the entitlement of Anganwadi workers to maternity benefit, including leave of absence, and their coverage under relevant Government Orders. It also emphasizes the importance of following due process and conducting an enquiry before taking action on grounds of unauthorized absence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order dated 18.11.2021 passed in W.P. (MD) No.10605 of 2014.)

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal has been preferred calling into question the legality and validity of the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by a learned single judge of this Court in W.P. (MD) No.10605 of 2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the instant intra-Court appeal.

3. The District Collector, Sivagangai and the Child Development Project Officer, Singampunari are the appellants.

4. Before the learned single judge, the respondent was not present. Therefore, when this intra-Court appeal came up, we directed issuance of notice to her and she appeared before us on 29.06.2022. When asked whether she requires any assistance, she expressed her opinion in the affirmative. Accordingly, she engaged a counsel and contested the appeal.

5. In the writ petition, the respondent had challenged the order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the first appellant, besides seeking a direction to the first appellant to reinstate her as Anganwadi worker with effect from 15.10.2013 with all attendant benefits. After notice was ordered in the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the second appellant on behalf of both the appellants.

6. The respondent filed another writ petition also, being W.P.(MD) No. 3750 of 2014 with the following prayer, subsequent to filing of the first writ petition.

“to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 1st Respondent Secretary vide G.O.Ms.No.4 Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 09.01.1995 quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned.”

7. Since the State of Tamil Nadu was also a party in that writ petition apart from the two appellants and a Government Order was under challenge therein, a counter affidavit dated nil October 2014 was filed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department.

8. The learned single judge clubbed both the writ petitions together and passed a common order dated 18.11.2021. However, as against the common order made in two writ petitions, only the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.10605 of 2014 is sought to be challenged before us. There is no indication that any other separate intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed in the other writ petition, viz., W.P.(MD) No.13750 of 2014.

9. Insofar as the writ petition against which no appeal has been filed, i.e. W.P.(MD) No.13750 of 2014, the learned judge allowed that writ petition in the following terms:-

“This Court holds that the 6 months period ought to be calculated after the deducting the statutory period of 3 months and if so then the petitioner had taken 4 months 11 days leave, which is well within the period prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.4 (Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 09.01.1995). Hence the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.13750 / 2014 is allowed with the above observation.”

10. By the Government Order referred to above, the Social Welfare Department ordered that the Child Welfare Organisers were appointed on honorarium basis and no service rules have been framed, and that the Government servants regulations and the Fundamental Rules were not applicable to them. However, in paragraph 3(b) of the said Government Order, it was ordered as follows:-

11. Based on the above Government Order, the appellants contended that the respondent had availed more than 7 months and 11 days leave and as per the Government Order, she can be terminated as she was on leave for more than 6 months; however, the learned single judge has held that the respondent was entitled to statutory leave on grounds of maternity and therefore, if 3 months are deducted from the alleged absenc