1 2026:HHC:4333 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) 88 of 2026 a/w LPA No. 68 of 2026 Date of decision: 25.02.2026 ________________________________________________________ Lalita Devi …..Appellant Versus State of HP & others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Kishore Pundeer, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 88 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. 68 of 2026 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in CWP No. 6988 of 2024, titled as Lalita Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, dated 13.11.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 27.06.2024, terminating her services, for insubordination and indiscipline while working as Anganwadi Worker, was upheld. 3. The reason given by the learned Single Judge for upholding the termination order and rejecting the argument that the punishment of termination of services imposed upon the petitioner was too harsh considering her long service, was that despite the directions to shift the Anganwadi Centre from her home to Mahila Mandal Bhawan and notices having been issued, the Anganwadi Centre had firstly been shifted to the house of her brother-in-law and some sort of agreement had been entered into between them for running Anganwadi Centre there for a period of one year. 3 4. It was also noticed by the learned Single Judge that the husband of the petitioner misbehaved with the superior officers of the appellant when an attempt was made to shift the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan and in this regard, an FIR had also been registered by the respondents. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that it was not for the petitioner/appellant to decide where the Anganwadi Centre should be located. It being a case of gross insubordination and indiscipline on her part and she having been given ample opportunities in the form of office letters, notices and orders for shifting the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan, but she did not avail the same. Three show cause notices were issued to her directing to shift Anganwadi Centre from her home to Mahila Mandal Bhawan, but she repeatedly disobeyed and defied the orders of the higher Authorities and thus, her services were terminated and, therefore, it was held that no case for interference was made out, as the petitioner exhibited scant regard to the orders of her direct higher officers. She did not 4 maintain either the decorum, dignity of her position or that of her superiors. Thus, the respondents were left with no other option, but to terminate her services. It was held that insubordination cannot be taken lightly as it affects hierarchy of position and the chain of command, which in turn, affects working of employer. Thus, it was held that the termination of the services of the petitioner could not be termed as perverse or disproportionate. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to canvas that since the petitioner was serving as Anganwadi Worker for a long period, therefore, the termination order of her services was not justified. 6. We have gone through the record minutely. Apparently, the Anganwadi Centre was being run firstly in the house of the petitioner/appellant, which is stated to be at some distance at a secluded place and there was a request on behalf of the villagers that the Anganwadi Centre should be located in the middle of the village, which would be clear from the representation dated 24.03.2024 (Annexure R-2). 5 Thereafter, the appellant shifted the Anganwadi Centre to the house of her brother-in-law and objections were raised by the villagers that the same should be run in the building of Mahila Mandal, which would be clear from the representation dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure R-3) given to the Child Development Project Officer Gopalpur at Sarkaghat, District Mandi. 7. Prior to that, on 18.03.2023, (Annexure R-4), a complaint was made against the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ratan Chand Verma that he had threatened in case the Anganwadi Center Sadhwani is shifted and it was pointed out that the said person could obstruct government work in future, also. 8. Apparently, on 19.07.2023 (Annexure R-5), directions were issued to the Child Development Project Officer, Gopalpur, District Mandi to shift the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan. 9. A Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 5293 of 2023, titled as Anganwari Level Monitoring & Support Committee Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, challenging the said shifting of the 6 Anganwadi Centre, was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 10.08.2023, whereby a direction was issued to the respondents to consider and decide the resolutions passed by the petitioner. 10. Vide order dated, 21.10.2023 (Annexure R-7), the Director, Women and Child Development Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, directed that Anganwadi Centre Sadhwani be shifted to Mahila Mandal Bhawan and the Child Development Project Officer, Gopalpur at Sarkaghat & District Programme Officer, Mandi were directed to take necessary action within two months. 11. Apparently, there was resistance to the said directions by the appellant and three show cause notices, dated 14.12.2023, 29.12.2023 and 12.01.2024 for compliance of the order of the higher Authorities dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure R-7) were issued to the appellant and on that account, on violation of the Terms and Conditions of Services under Rule 7, the services of the appellant were terminated with immediate effect. 12. It is not disputed that the Anganwadi Centre was shifted to Mahila Mandal Bhawan, after 7 termination of services of the petitioner. It is thus apparent that the learned Single Judge was correct in recording the finding that in view of Rule 7, Anganwadi Workers are only honorary workers and three notices were served on the appellant in the interval of 15 days for misconduct, misbehaviour, for more than 30 days disruption of services and for non-performance of her duties, and therefore, the appropriate action can be taken. 13. The difficulty as such was that the appellant was standing like a mountain in the way of compliance of the order of the higher Authorities regarding shifting of the Anganwadi Centre to Mahila Mandal Bhawan. 14. The learned Single Judge has recorded that the chain of command had directly affected the working of the employer and only a volunteer worker has disrupted the work, which was for the general benefit of the public. Thus, we do not find any appropriate reason as such to take a different view what has been taken by the learned Single Judge in stating that the worker as such has only demoralized the superior officers. In such 8 circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as perverse and requires no interference. Resultatly, we do not find any ground for interference. 15. Further, the order of termination as such cannot be said to have affected the appellant by way of any civil consequences, as the petitioner was only working as a part-time honorary Anganwadi Worker and was getting fixed remuneration. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. February 25, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.