Page 1 of 4 SWP No. 1198/2013 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 27.01.2026 Uploaded on : 28.01.2026 SWP No. 1198/2013 Shamim Begum …..Petitioner Through: Mr. P.N. Bhat, Advocate Vs State of J&K & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) 01. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the present petition is that she is not being allowed to perform the duties as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center Dunga Panchayat Manoo, Tehsil Gandoh and District Doda, though, she was engaged as Anganwari Worker in terms of an order dated 25.07.2011 issued by the respondent No. 3-Child Development Project Officer, Gandoh, district Doda. 02. It is being submitted that on 04.12.2011, the petitioner was kidnapped by certain persons and was taken forcibly to an unknown place. It has also been submitted that the Serial No. 27 Page 2 of 4 SWP No. 1198/2013 matter was reported to the police on 06.12.2011 and an FIR in this regard was registered. 03. It is being submitted that when no action was taken by the police, a writ petition bearing OWP No. 630/2012 came to be filed and the police authorities thereafter took steps for searching the petitioner. It has further been submitted that due to the pressure of the police, she was released by the kidnapper from their clutches, whereafter she reached her home. 04. According to the petitioner when she approached the respondents for allowing her to resume her duties she was not allowed to do so which compelled her to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 05. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing their reply. In their reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner did not attend her duty for about one year as a result whereof, functioning of the Anganwari Center suffered badly. 06. A show cause notice dated 24.05.2012 was issued to the petitioner and she was asked to report back to her duty but she failed to respond. Accordingly, the petitioner was disengaged vide letter dated 08.06.2012. Page 3 of 4 SWP No. 1198/2013 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 08. It appears that this Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed interim direction dated 24.05.2013 whereby respondent No. 2-Director Social Welfare Department, Jammu was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for accepting her joining report. It was further provided that while doing so, the factum of petitioner having been kidnapped has to be taken into consideration whereafter a speaking order was to be issued by the said respondent. It was also directed that the respondents shall not re-advertise the post against which the petitioner was appointed. 09. For the last more than twelve years, it seems that the respondents have not considered the representation of the petitioner for accepting her joining report. Obviously because of the interim order passed by this Court, fresh advertisement notice said to have been issued by the respondents has not been taken to its logical conclusion. Consequently, Anganwari Center in question is without an Anganwari Worker for all these years thereby defeating the very purpose for which the Anganwari Center was set up at the relevant location. Page 4 of 4 SWP No. 1198/2013 10. This Court feels that without going into the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties, this writ petition can be disposed of, at this stage, in terms of the interim order dated 24.05.2013 passed by this Court. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2-Director Social Welfare Department, Jammu to consider the representation of the petitioner for her re-engagement by taking into account the fact that the petitioner was kidnapped as a result whereof, she was unable to resume her duties. The consideration order shall be passed by the respondent No. 2- Director Social Welfare Department, Jammu within a period of one month from today and in case, any adverse order is passed by the said respondent against the petitioner, it shall be open to her to approach this Court afresh for challenging any such order. 12. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 27.01.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No