Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : Aditya Garg
For the Respondent : L. C. Patne

ORDER VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – The appellant/State has filed the present writ appeal against the order dated 18-6-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 1434/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner has been allowed.

The facts of the case in short are as under : – That vide order dated 11-3-2001 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker in Aanganwadi Centre, Sala (Rajukhedi), Tehsil-Manawar, District-Dhar upon recommendation of a duly constituted Selection Committee. A show-cause notice dated 22-9-2017, was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to submit an explanation over the general allegation of not residing at the headquarters, and absenteeism on the dates of inspection, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the show-cause notice. As the petitioner was suffering from viral fever, therefore, she was on leave w.e.f. 24-9-2017 to 28-9-2017, and thereafter, she was declared fit by the registered Medical Practitioner w.e.f. 29-9-2017, therefore, on the same day i.e. 29-9-2017, she submitted her reply denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice. However, without holding any enquiry as contemplated under circular dated 10-7-2007, respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 27-9-2017.

2. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. W. P No. 22351/2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 19-12-2017 with the direction to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against that order. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal, however, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14-8-2018. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court.

3. The appellants/respondents filed the reply in the writ petition stating that the petitioner is not a government employee she was appointed on honorarium hence the service rules which apply to the government employees does not apply to the petitioners and has rightly been terminated under the clause 4-D of the appointment order and the guidelines of the circular dated 10-7-2007. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and she submitted a reply thereafter, which was not found satisfactory the services of the petitioner were terminated.

4. The Hon’ble writ Court by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Kansa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other , reported in 2015(4) M.P.L.J. 151 has set aside the order of termination as the principles of natural justice was not followed. Hence, this writ appeal before this Court.

5. This writ appeal is barred by 318 days. Hence application for condonation of delay has been filed. The Petitioner has filed a reply to the aforesaid application seriously opposing the application for condonation of delay on the ground that no sufficient reason has been assigned for condoning the delay.

6. Ongoing through the averments made in the application it is apparent that it is a case of Aanganwadi centre situated at Tehsil-Mandsaur District Dhar, the Office of Advocate General is situated at Indore and Law Department at Bhopal. The file was routed from Dhar to Indore and Indore to Bhopal and after obtaining the necessary approval from Law Department on 5-5-2020 the OIC was appointed and a writ appeal was filed. Although there is a delay in filing this writ appeal in view of the explanation given in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit the delay is hereby condoned.

Heard on the question of Admission.

7-8. Shri Aditya Garg, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State submitted that services of the petitioner/respondent were governed under the circular dated 10-7-2007 in which clause 4