Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040006722020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/264/2020 Oti Moyong W/O SHRI NONG DARIN, VILLAGE SIKKO (ADIPASI CIRCLE MOPOM, PO/PS MARIYANG, DIST. UPPER SIANG, AP. VERSUS The State of AP and Others REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT/SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF AP, ITANAGAR 2:THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT Age: 0 Occupation : GOVT. OF AP DISTRICT UPPER SIANG A P. 3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ICDS CELL) Age: 0 Occupation : MARIYANG GOVT. OF AP DISTRICT UPPER SIANG A P. 4:ARUNA DAI (ANGANWADI WORKER) Age: 0 Occupation : OF SIKO (ADI PASI ) VILLAGE PO/PS MARIYANG DISTRICT UPPER SIANG AP. C/O THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ICDS CELL) MARIYANG GOVT. OF AP DISTRICT UPPER SIANG Page No.# 2/9 AP Advocate for the Petitioner : T Taki, Tabit Tapak,T Tabing,Y Pangu,1 T Pangkeng Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 12.08.2026 Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. None appears for the Respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Authorities for reinstating her as a Anganwadi Worker in Adipasi Anganwadi Centre. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed, as under. The petitioner, herein, was appointed temporarily as an Anganwadi Worker w.e.f. 01-01-1999, in the Adipasi Anganwadi Centre, vide an order dated 31-12-1998. The petitioner projects that she continued to discharge her services, thereafter, in the centre. The petitioner further projects that she was being paid her honorarium till March 2016, and thereafter her honorarium was not being released. The Page No.# 3/9 petitioner through her husband, had sought for information and documents pertaining to the termination order issued to her and the total honorarium paid to her, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is projected that in response to the application filed in the matter under the RTI Act, the RTI reply so made, had revealed that the petitioner was paid her honorarium from 01- 01-1999 to 31-03-2016. It was further revealed that in place of the petitioner, the Respondent No.4 (Ms. Aruna Dai), was so appointed as the Anganwadi Worker of Siko (Adipasi) Anganwadi Centre w.e.f. 01-02-2017. The petitioner having received the said information and there being no order terminating the services of the petitioner, she has instituted the present writ petition, praying for the reliefs as noticed, hereinabove. 4. Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the services of the petitioner was never discontinued by way of issuance of a formal order. It is submitted that while the petitioner's appointment was so continuing, the Respondent Authorities could not have proceeded to appoint the Respondent No.4, in her place as an Anganwadi Worker. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner having rendered her services in the Anganwadi Centre till the first week of January 2020, the petitioner was entitled to her honorarium and the continuance by the petitioner in her service would also go to reveal that the Respondent No.4, was never appointed in the Anganwadi Centre, wherein, the petitioner was so Page No.# 4/9 appointed as Anganwadi Worker vide order dated 31.12.1998. 4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the affidavit filed by the Respondents in the matter, has submitted that the contention raised, therein, to the effect that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from the Anganwadi Centre and for that reason, her honorarium was not released, and further for the said reason, engagement of the Respondent No.4, was mandated to be made to ensure the works of the Anganwadi Centre was not interrupted, is clearly perverse. He submits that the Respondents while raising the said contentions, have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the petitioner had in fact remained unauthorizedly absent from her duties w.e.f. 01-04-2016. 4.2. In the above premises, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination of the services of the petitioner, even if effected, the same was not done in terms of the provisions of the “Arunachal Pradesh Terms & Conditions of Services of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers, their Roles and Responsibility Guidelines, 2019”. Accordingly, it is submitted that the deemed termination of the services of the petitioner would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the State Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, has submitted that the petitioner was found to have remained unauthorisedly absent from the Anganwadi Centre w.e.f. 01-04-2016. She submits that the jurisdictional Child Development Project Office (CDPO), after having waited for the petitioner to resume her services, till 31-12- Page No.# 5/9 2016; the petitioner not having rejoined her services, proceeded to initiate a process for engaging another qualified person as Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, and accordingly, vide an order dated 01-02-2017, the Respondent No.4, was so engaged in the said centre. 5.1. Ms. P. Pangu, submits that the role of an Anganwadi Worker is of primary importance and the Anganwadi Worker is required to provide care and attention to children below 06 (six) years of age as well as nursing and pregnant women. The Anganwadi Worker is also required to provide education to children in the age group of 3-6 years. She submits that considering the necessity for a Anganwadi Worker to be present in the Anganwadi Centre, for implementation of the scheme, involved, the petitioner having remained unauthorisedly absent, the Respondent Authorities had to engage the Respondent No.4, as an Anganwadi Worker, so as to ensure that the activities carried out in the Anganwadi Centre, in question, is not disrupted. 5.2. Ms. P. Pangu, learned Junior Government Advocate, further submits that the petitioner as well as the Respondent No.4, herein, were appointed in the same Anganwadi Centre. Ms. Pangu, has further submitted that the appointment of the Respondent No.4, being effected vide an order dated 01-02-2017, is not disputed. She submits that the same would also go to reveal that the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04- 2016, had not attended her duties in the said Anganwadi Centre, till around the year 2019, when the petitioner had approached the Respondent Authorities Page No.# 6/9 seeking information /documents, under the RTI Act. She submits that in the event, the petitioner was attending her duties in the said Anganwadi Centre, she would have immediately raised a grievance, with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.4, as Anganwadi Worker, therein. Mr. Pangu, submits that in an Anganwadi Centre, there is only 01 (one) Anganwadi Worker engaged. Accordingly, she submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. A necessity arising for an engagement of a person as an Anganwadi Worker of the Anganwadi Centre, in question, on the termination of the services of the incumbent Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner, herein, was vide order dated 31- 12-1998, temporarily engaged as an Anganwadi worker w.e.f. 01-01-1999. The Anganwadi Centres are created under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), which is a nationwide programme of the Government of India, offering important intervention for addressing nutrition and health problems and promoting early childhood education amongst the disadvantaged population of the country. The services of a Anganwadi Worker is extremely important for the success of the said scheme and a Anganwadi Worker is required to discharge her duties in a most efficient manner. A Anganwadi Worker is required to provide care and attention to newborn babies, as well as ensure that all children below the age of 06 (six) years Page No.# 7/9 are immunized and/or in other words receives vaccination. The Anganwadi Worker is also expected to provide antenatal care for pregnant women and ensure that they are also immunized against tetanus. The Anganwadi Worker is also required to provide postnatal care to nursing mothers as well as to prevent malnourishment by providing supplementary nutrition to both children below the age of 06 (six) years, as well as nursing and pregnant women. 8. Having noticed the job profile of an Anganwadi Worker, this Court would now examine the contentions raised by the Respondents, with regard to the circumstances under which the respondent no.4, came to be engaged as the Anganwadi Worker for the Anganwadi Centre, in question. This Court finds that the Respondents have contended that as the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 01.04.2016, and she having not resumed her services, the Respondent Authorities, considering the necessity for having a Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, had proceeded to appoint the Respondent No.4, as the Anganwadi Worker, in the said Anganwadi Centre vide an order dated 01-02- 2017. It is projected that the Respondent No.4, is discharging her duties as an Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, in question, w.e.f. 01-02-2017. 9. The said projection as made by the Respondent Authorities pertaining to the necessity for engaging the Respondent No.4, as the Anganwadi Worker of the said Anganwadi Centre, has merit, considering the role played by an Anganwadi Worker in an Anganwadi Centre. Page No.# 8/9 10. The projection made by the petitioner that her services was not terminated and that she was continuing as the Anganwadi Worker in the said Anganwadi Centre, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court, inasmuch as, in the event, the petitioner was so continuing in her services, on appointment of the Respondent No.4, w.e.f. 01-02-2017 or on a date proximate, thereto, the petitioner would have raised a grievance with regard to such appointment being effected, in her place. No such grievance is found to have been raised by the petitioner, proximate to the time of appointment of the Respondent No.4, which again goes to reveal that the Respondent No.4, admittedly was not attending her duties w.e.f, 01-04-2016. 11. This Court accordingly, in the facts and circumstances arising in the present writ petition, finds the action of the Respondent Authorities, in engaging the Respondent No.4, as an Anganwadi Worker in the said centre, so as to continue with the welfare activities, to be not erroneous. 12. From the materials brought on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, herein, had, through her husband, sought for information with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.4, termination order issued in respect of the petitioner, by way of submitting an RTI application on 17-12-2018. There is no material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had raised a grievance with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.4, in the said Anganwadi Centre prior, thereto. Page No.# 9/9 13. The petitioner in the event, was attending to her duties in the said Anganwadi Centre, she, in the normal course of things, would have raised a grievance with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No.4, proximate to the time when the Respondent No.4, was so appointed in the said Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner, however, has not raised any grievance in this connection, which again goes to reveal that the petitioner admittedly had remained away from her duties in the said Anganwadi Centre w.e.f., 01-04-2016. Accordingly, the non- disbursal of honorarium to the petitioner w.e.f. 01-04-2016, in the considered view of this Court also cannot be held to be erroneous. 14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioner in this writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant