Jhumur Ghosh vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional GA appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to allow her join her service as the Anganwadi worker.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as the Anganwadi worker by the engagement order dated 05.08.2006 (Annexure B to the writ petition) and in terms thereof the petitioner joined in the Gitanjali Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner has admitted that she was absent continuously for more than one year and thereafter she joined the post and continued to do the same work.

According to the respondents, again she had absented from her duties and had created serious dislocation in running of the said Anganwadi Centre. Departmentally her absence was inquired. But the department did not take any action for her absence in the year 2011 on consideration that during that period she gave birth of her daughter and she was also allowed the maternity leave as per norms. She was paid her salary as well. The said inquiry as Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional G.A. has pointed was carried out as the petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Minister, Tripura. The office of the Chief Minister, Tripura had asked the department to inquire into the matter and submit a report. Accordingly the report was submitted. In paragraph 15, the respondents in reply to paragraph 14 and 15 of the writ petition have stated that Several show cause notices were issued to Smt. Ghosh, AWH for her unauthorized absent periods for explaining the reason of absence, but nothing is received by this office from her end. Copy of the show cause VIDe No. F.1(23)/CDPO/UDP/NP-ICDS/2010/11025 dated 30.11.2012 is enclosed herewith along with resolution copy of the centre committee for ready reference. It is also to be stated here that in the year 2011, at the time of birth of her daughter, she is allowed maternity leaVe as per norms and paid salary accordingly. It is to be stated here that Smt. Jhumur Ghosh, AWH sent a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Tripura seeking redress on this issue and accordingly, the petition of Smt. Ghosh, AWH is forwarded to the CDPO Nagar Panchayat through the Director, Social Welfare & Social Education, Agartala with direction to send a complete enquiry report on this issue accordingly, report is sent to the Directorate of Social Welfare & Social Education, Agartala by the office letter No. F.1(23)/CDPO/UDP/NP-ICDS/2010/688-89, dated 14.10.2015 [Extracted from the reply]. Finally, on the basis of the Centre Committee resolution, as the absence of the petitioner from her engagement, the petitioner has been terminated for long and un-substantiated absence and it was communicated to the petitioner by the office letter under No. F.1(23)/CDPO/UDP/NP- ICDS/2010/747(6)A dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure R-5 to the reply filed by the respondents).

Mr. Roy, learned counsel has however contended that no copy of the memorandum dated 30.10.2015 was ever received by the petitioner. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated that no show cause or resolution was ever supplied to the petitioner. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that since the petitioner was allowed to join in her duty in the Anganwadi Centre after her leave, the earlier absence in the year 2011 cannot be taken into consideration for taking any action against the petitioner.

It is apparent from the reply of the respondents that no such action has been taken for absence of the petitioner in the year, 2011, but for the subsequent absence, the said decision had been taken. The petitioner does not have any right to such relief as the engagement was purely on No work No pay basis, as would be apparent from the engagement order dated 05.08.2016. The petitioner since has not disputed rather admitted her absence from the duties, now cannot claim any relief even in equity when the Anganwadi Centers are setup in providing the supplementary nutrition and other cares to the target-children group and the Anganwadi workers are supposed to play a vital role in running the said programme. As such, it cannot be denied that the absence creates a serious dislocation. No person can be allowed to conduct in the manner as the petitioner has conducted. Hence, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

In terms of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, but the petitioner is given liberty to approach the competent authority by filing a representation for considering her engagement as Anganwadi worker in the available vacancy. If such application is made to the competent authority, the competent authority shall consider the said application with compassion.

There shall be no order as to costs.