IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.160 of 2014 Decided on: 24.03.2025 Sangeeta Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pratush Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents no.1 to 3. Ms. Jaidev Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) In pursuance of order dated 07.03.2025, both the private parties i.e. Smt. Sangeeta Devi (petitioner) and Smt. Anita (respondent No.4) are present in the Court in person. 2. Both the parties have represented that the matter in issue and all inter se disputes arising therefrom between them have been amicably settled. In this view of the matter, respondent No.4 Smt. Anita does not want to pursue her complaint or allegations against petitioner. Separate statement of Smt. Anita has been recorded in the Court to above effect. 2 3. Keeping in view the development that has taken place, Smt. Sangeeta Devi and Smt. Anita, petitioner and respondent No.4, have jointly stated that the petition be decided in terms of their settlement. The official respondents have no objection to their proposal. 4. Evidently, the appointment of petitioner Smt. Sangeeta Devi to the post of Anganwari Worker was questioned by respondent No.4 in the year 2007. Though, on the compliant of respondent No.4, one or the other proceedings continued, yet the fact of matter remained that the petitioner continued to perform the duties of Anganwari Worker and in such manner now it has been about 18 years in this process and the petitioner is continuously performing such duties. 5. As respondent No.4 has agreed to withdraw all her complaints and allegations against petitioner, I feel that nothing requires to be adjudicated upon further and in view of the stand of the parties now taken, it will be in the interest of justice to allow the petition. Accordingly, the order Annexure P-6 dated 10.12.2013 is quashed and set aside. The official respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue her services as Anganwari Worker on the terms as are permissible under the scheme. 3 6. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 24th March, 2025 (vt)