Page 1 of 7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.25360, 18282, 18283, 23080 & 25368 of 2012 Golap Dei ..... Petitioner Mr. A. Mohanty, Adv. -versus- Commissioner-cum-Secy. & Child Welfare Deptt. &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 10.07.2026 Order No.23 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the. 3. Pursuant to order dated 25.06.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the CDPO, Ranapur vide her letter dated 09.07.2020. The same be kept in record. 4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that no such specific notice was issued to the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 18282 & 18283 of 2012 as well as W.P.(C) No. 23080 of 2012 directing them to shift the centre to any other building prior to occurrence of incident on 09.07.2012. 4.1. It is also contended that the post of A.W. worker from where Petitioners were so disengaged vide the orders issued by the Sub- Page 2 of 7. Collector-cum-Chairman, ICDS, Ranapur has not yet been filled up and the centres are running through internal arrangement. 5. All these Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia challenging the order of termination issued by the Sub-Collector-cum-Chairman, ICDS, Ranapur disengaging the petitioners while continuing as Anganwadi worker in the Centres in question on the ground that because of the negligence so far as shifting of the centre in question is concerned, since the mishap occurred on 09.07.2012, resulting death of some students, they are not eligible to continue any further. 5.1. It is also contended that since the order of termination was issued by the Sub-Collector, who happens to be the Appellate Authority in such matters, challenging the orders of termination, all these Writ Petitions are filed. Not only that, during pendency of the writ petition, when steps were taken to fill up the vacancy with issuance of fresh notice, the same was also challenged by filing separate petitions by the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.18282 & 18283 of 2012, in W.P.(C) No.25360 & 25368 of 2012. 5.2. It is contended that since at no point of time, Petitioners were directed to shift the centre to any other safe building and by the time such a letter was issued, the mishap had already occurred, no fault can be found with the Petitioners for the aforesaid mishap, Page 3 of 7. which took place on 09.07.2012, resulting the death of some students. 5.3. It is also contended that pursuant to the advertisement so issued to fill up the vacancy, no order of engagement has been issued and all the three (3) Centres from where the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.18282 & 18283 of 2012 as well as W.P.(C) No.23080 of 2012 were disengaged are running through internal arrangement and the same is admitted in the instruction provided by the learned State Counsel. However it is vehemently contended that since prior to such order of disengagement, Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.18282, 18283 and 23080 of 2012 were never show-caused nor opportunity of hearing was given, all such orders of disengagement are not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside with a direction to re-engage the Petitioners herein. 6. Considering the submission made and the stand taken, this Court passed the following order on 25.06.2026. “1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the mishap in question though had happened on 09.07.2012 and vide letter dtd.27.07.2012 so issued by the CDPO, Ranapur so enclosed as Annexure-A/4 in the counter filed in W.P.(C) No. 18282 of 2012, Petitioners who happen to be Anganwadi Workers of both the Centres were directed to shift the centre to a room provided by the Headmaster-in-Charge of Nelia Primary School, Suansiasahi, but basing on the show-cause issued to them, they were disengaged as Page 4 of 7. Anganwadi Worker and steps were taken to fill up the vacancy by issuing fresh advertisement. 3.1. It is contended that since prior to 27.07.2012, Petitioners at no point of time had been directed to shift the centre to any other building, no fault lies with them for the mishap which took place on 09.07.2012. However, without proper appreciation of the reply given by the Petitioners, both the Petitioners were disengaged vide order dtd.23.08.2012 and 06.09.2012 respectively. 3.2. It is also contended that on the face of the advertisement so issued, no new engagement of Anganwadi Worker has been made in the meantime in the centres in question. 4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to obtain instruction and produce documents as to whether prior to 09.07.2012, any communication was issued to the Petitioners to shift the centre to any other building. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is further directed to obtain instruction as to whether any fresh engagement of Anganwadi Worker has been made in the meantime. 6. As requested by the learned ASC, list this matter on 10th July, 2026. 7. In the interim, the post of Anganwadi Worker, if has not yet been filled up in the centres in question, shall not be filled up without leave of this Court. Free copy of the order be provided to Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned ASC for compliance.” 7. Today, when the matter was taken, basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that there is no such specific direction issued to each of the Petitioners, who were continuing as Anganwadi worker in the Centres in question, directing them to shift the Centre and such a letter was only issued after the mishap had occurred. But prior to such mishap, Govt. in the Women and Child Development Department vide letter dated 02.09.2009, directed all Collectors to utilise safe building and community building as Anganwadi Centre. 7.1. Basing on such letter issued by the Government on 02.09.2009, Sub-Collector, Nayagarh vide his letter dated 05.11.2009, requested Page 5 of 7. District Project Co-ordinator, Sarba Sikshya Abhiyan, Nayagarh to issue necessary instruction to all the Head Master, Primary School/ Upper Primary School, to provide one class room for smooth running of the Centre for the purpose of implementation of the ICDS programme. But no such letters were issued to the Petitioners directing them to shift the Centre to any other buildings at any point of time prior to happening of the mishap on 09.07.2012. 7.2. It is also fairly contended that, till date the posts from which the Petitioners were disengaged have not yet been filled up and the Centres are running through internal arrangement and allowing Anganwadi workers from nearby Centres to run the Centres. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made and the fact which is not disputed, Petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.18282, 18283 & 23080 of 2012 after facing the selection process, were engaged as Anganwadi workers in different AW Centres coming under ICDS Project, Ranapur. 8.1. However, while so continuing, all the Petitioners were terminated vide orders issued by the Sub-Collector on different dates and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Accordingly W.P.(C) No.18282, 18283 and 23080 of 2012 were filed challenging such orders of disengagement before Page 6 of 7. this Court. During pendency of the above said Writ Petitions when fresh notice was issued to fill up the vacancy, Petitioners in W.P.(C) 18282 & 18283 of 2012 challenging the selection process, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.25360 & 25368 of 2012. 8.2. Since from the instruction, it is quite apparent that no such direction was ever issued to the Petitioners to shift the Centre prior to occurrence of the mishap, which occurred on 09.07.2012, this Court is of the view that no fault lies with the Petitioners with regard to the occurrence of the mishap and consequential death of some minor children on 09.07.2012. 8.3. Since no such communication is available in the record, nor provided pursuant to order dated 25.06.2026 of this Court showing any such direction being issued by the higher authorities directing the Petitioners to shift the Centre, it is the view of this Court that Petitioners cannot be found fault with the mishap, which took place on 09.07.2012. 8.4. Since it is not disputed by the State that the post of A.W. worker from which the Petitioners were disengaged have not yet been filled up on the face of the notices issued in that regard, it is also the view of this Court, that there will be no issue for allowing Page 7 of 7. the Petitioners to continue with issuance of an order of re- engagement. 8.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the orders of disengagement issued by Sub-Collector, Nayagarh-cum- Chairman, ICDS, Ranapur which are impugned in W.P.(C) Nos. 15282, 15283 & 23080 of 2012 and the fact that the posts of A.W. worker have not yet been filled up from where the Petitioners were so disengaged, direct Sub-Collector, Nayagarh-cum-Chairman, ICDS Project, Ranapur to re-engage the Petitioners in their previous engagement with passing of an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8.6. The break period of engagement be regularised on notional basis. Petitioners however will not be entitled to get any remuneration for the break period of engagement. 9. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photo copy of this order be placed in the connected case records. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti