1 RPSW no.21/2016 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … RPSW no.21/2016 Nighat Bashir and others ……...Petitioners(s) Through: None Versus State of J&K and others ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahingeer Ahmad Dar, GA Mr. Irfan Ahmad Mir, Advocate vice Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate for Review Petitioner/respondent no.7 CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 12.03.2025 1. Review of order/judgement dated 10th August 2015 in SWP no.173/2015 c/w SWP nos.136/2015, 1984/2014 titled as Nighat Bashir and others, State of J&K and others, is sought for on the grounds made mention in the instant petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondent no.7 and considered the matter. 3. Learned counsel for review petitioner/respondent no.7 has stated that Anganwari Worker is non-transferable post in terms of Government Ordewr no.7-SW of 2010 and that review petitioner is not aggrieved of entire judgement but to the extent by which it has directed that respondent no.6 shall go back to the original place i.e. Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre, Guffabal, ICDS Project, Trehgam. The review is being sought on the ground that said respondent is basically appointed in Anganwadi Centre Kababmarg in the year 2000 while as position of Anganwadi Worker in Gofabal become available in the year 2005 on account of promotion of Anganwadi Worker, namely, Marayam as Supervisor. In the year 2008, respondent no.6 was given additional 2 RPSW no.21/2016 charge but no order in black and white was passed that could have been questioned. He states that this Court may review order/judgement to the extent of directing respondent no.6 to go back to the original place, i.e. Anganwadi Centre Gofabal, ICDS Project or this Court may omit the word Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Gofabal or in cae this Court considers that same needs to be reflected in that eventuality this Court may review the order to the extent of directing respondent no.6 to go back to her original place of posting i.e., Anganwadi Centre Kababmarg ICDS Project Trehgam, where said respondent was basically appointed. 4. Objections have filed by official respondents, in which they state that judgement has been implemented and Mst. Hafeeza Bano, Anganwadi Worker has back to her original place i.e., Anganwadi Worker in Anganwadi Centre Herpora-B Gofabal, ICDS Project Trehgam, and Mst. Shakeela Bano has reverted back to her original position, i.e., Anganwadi Helper in Anganwadi Centre Herpora-B Gofabal, ICDS Project Trehgam, and all are working at their actual positions and are being paid legitimately earned wages as per norms in vogue. 5. Since the judgement, review of which is sought, has already been implemented in letter and spirit, the instant petition does not call for any interference and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 12.03.2025 “Ajaz Ahmad, Secretary” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.