1 2025:CGHC:46341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1261 of 2022 1 - Deokala Sinha W/o Late Chhagan Lal Aged About 50 Years Working As Anganbadi Worker, Anganbadi Centre, Mujgahan, Block-Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Women And Child Devlopment Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.S.Rakhi, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Project Officer Office Of Integrated Women And Child Development, Devri, District -Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Doundilohara, District - Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the unpaid salary in favour of petitioner for the period from 05.02.2004 to 21.05.2010 and from 19.01.2012 to 12.10.2021 forthwith, with Interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Worker at Anganbadi Centre vide order dated 28.1.1997. He would submit that her services were terminated vide order dated 16.2.2004 without following the procedure of law. He would further submit that the order of termination was set aside in WP No.697 of 2004 vide order dated 31.3.2010 and pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 19.5.2010. He would submit that after the termination of services of the petitioner, one Smt. Anita Bai was appointed to the post of Anganbadi Worker, who worked there till 12.10.2021. He would also submit that though an order of reinstatement was issued in favour of the petitioner on 19.5.2010 but she has not permitted to join the services. He would contend that the respondent authorities may be directed to make payment of arrears of salary from 5.2.2004 to 21.5.2010 and 19.1.2012 to 12.10.2021. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. 3 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the order passed in WP No.697 of 2004 dated 31.3.2010 and a specific order was issued by the Project Officer on 19.5.2010, but she was not permitted to resume her services until 27.12.2021; the petitioner has accordingly claimed arrears of salary of that period. The order of termination of services of the petitioner has already been held bad in law by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 6. Considering the above-discussed facts, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondents No.2 to 4 within a period of 30 days and in turn, respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider and decide the representation so made within a period of 90 days. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi