RUBEENA BEGUM v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (SOCIAL WELFARE)
WP(C)/691/2024 · 2025-09-01
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6816 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6816 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 44 Regular Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 691/2024 CM(1849/2024) CM(4790/2025) RUBEENA BEGUM …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. T.A Lone, Advocate Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (SOCIAL WELFARE)
...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. A.R Malik, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
ORDER 01.09.2025
1. Petitioner herein is seeking direction upon respondents not to cancel the engagement order of petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Center Allachizub, Poshan Project Terhgam District Kupwara, with a further direction to continue the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker.
2. Petitioner has an apprehension that she would be disengaged under the grab of the communication dated 28.02.2024, issued by Mission Director Poshan J&K, Srinagar, whereby respondent No 3, has been directed to cancel the engagement order issued by the then CDPO Poshan Project Trehgam. It is being submitted that in the enquiry report dated 23.12.2023, the name of the petitioner does not figure.
3. Reply has not been filed, however, Mr. A.R Malik, learned Sr. AAG has stated at bar, that the respondents neither intend to nor have taken any action against the petitioner so far. Moreover, the name of the petitioner has not even been referred in the communication dated 28.02.2024.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would feel satisfied, if respondents are directed to proceed in accordance with law and not to pass any adverse order, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5.
Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A.R Malik, learned Sr. AAG is not averse to the preposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 to 4, not to pass any adverse order against the petitioner, without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner strictly in accordance with
law. Respondents are directed to release the honorarium in favour of the petitioner for the period she has discharged her duties, provided there is no legal impediment.
7.
Disposed of in the manner as indicated above, along with connected CMs.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 01.09.2025
“Adil Ismail”