Dismissed¶37

Bhuwanmati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2026WPS/3044/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 3044 of 2022, decided 03.07.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J. (NAFR). Anganwadi worker's writ petition against termination order dated 04/08/2020 passed by the Project Officer after prolonged absence (January 2019 – August 2020) dismissed as not maintainable; efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa under Rule 3(d) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995; liberty granted to appeal, to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Natural justice challenge to termination left undecided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the appellate authority (Collector, Janjgir-Champa), with an expectation that such appeal be decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.

Bhuwanmati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa under Rule 3(d) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

On the material filed by the State, the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 applies to Anganwadi Workers appointed by Janpad Panchayats, and under the Rules of 1995 an appeal lies before the Collector against an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of a Janpad Panchayat.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda and her services were terminated by the Project Officer, the appeal against the termination would lie before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa.

¶36

Key takeaways

An efficacious alternative remedy being available, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the appellate authority, which is expected to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (S) No. 3044 of 2022 — Anganwadi Worker — Termination — Maintainability — Alternative remedy. The petitioner, appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkharoda by order dated 28.6.2006, challenged her termination by order dated 04/08/2020 (No. 442 A.B.V.I. Pari/Estt./A.B.Ni.U./2020) issued by respondent No. 6 (Project Officer), contending it was passed behind her back without show cause notice or departmental inquiry, in violation of natural justice. The respondents opposed, pointing to her absence from January, 2019 till August, 2020 and to the availability of an appeal before the Collector under Rule 3(d) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. Held, dismissing the petition: per the guidelines dated 2.4.2008 of the Women and Child Welfare Department, the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 apply to Anganwadi Workers appointed by Janpad Panchayats, and under the Rules of 1995 an appeal lies before the Collector against an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of a Janpad Panchayat; the appeal against the termination would therefore lie before the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, making the writ petition not maintainable. Liberty was granted to prefer a duly constituted appeal, which the appellate authority is expected to decide expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law. The merits of the natural justice objection were not adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.04 11:33:07 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:27424

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3044 of 2022

¶7

Bhuwanmati D/o Setram Aged About 41 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Anganbadi Worker At Anganbadi Centre, Kaniydeeh, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, R/o Village Kaniydeeh, Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir, Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Women And Child Development Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Collector, Janjgir- Champa District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3. Zila Panchayat, Janjgir- Champa District Janjgir- Champa, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgie- Champa, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4. Janpad Panchayat, Malkhaorda District Janjgir- Champa,through Its Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, District JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh

¶14

5. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Malkharoda, District JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh

¶15

6. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Malkharoda, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner	:	Ms. Kajal Chandra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. MalayShrivastava, Advocate
For State	:	Mr. VinayPandey, Dy. A.G.
For Respondents No. 3 to 5	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate

¶18

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Judgment On Board

¶21

3.7.2026

¶22

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶23

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04/08/2020 bearing No.442 A.B.V.I. Pari/Estt./A.B.Ni.U./2020 respondent No.6. issued by

¶24

10.2 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.3 Cost of the petition.

¶26

2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwadi Worker at Centre Kaniyadeeh, Tehsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa vide order dated 28.6.2006. Petitioner submitted application for medical leave on 11.1.2019 and when she approached the respondent No. 6 along with fitness certificate on 15.12.2021 and 22.12.2021, she was not permitted to join the sevices. Petitioner preferred WPS No. 118 of 2022 seeking therein permission to join her services and during the pending of writ petition, she was informed that her services were terminated vide order dated 4.8.2020.

¶27

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that services of petitioner were terminated vide order dated 4.8.2020 behind the back of petitioner as no show cause notice was issued and no departmental inquiry was conducted by the respondents therefore the order of termination was passed in complete violation of principles of natural

¶28

¶29

justice. She further submits that petitioner had no knowledge of termination order dated 4.8.2020 and it came into her knowledge only after filing WPS No. 118 of 2020. She prays to quash the order impugned.

¶30

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that petitioner remained absent from services unauthorizedly from January, 2019 till August, 2020 therefore Project Officer i.e. respondent No. 6 vide order dated 4.8.2020 terminated the services of petitioner pursuant to resolution passed by Selection Committee dated 31.7.2020. They further submit that petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy available to prefer duly constituted appeal before the Collector, Janjgir Champa according to the provisions of Rule 3(d) of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Rules of 1995’] therefore this petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

6) It is admitted fact that petitioner remained absent from services from January, 2019 till August, 2020. In para 8.6 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that petitioner approached respondent No. 6 along with fitness certificate on 15.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 thus it is very much clear that petitioner approached the authority concerned only in December, 2021 even though termination order was issued in

¶33

¶34

August, 2020.

¶35

7) Perusal of reply filed by the State would indicate that according to the guidelines dated 2.4.2008 issued by the Women and Child Welfare Department, State of Chhattisgarh, the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam,1993 would apply to the Anganwadi Workers appointed by Janpad Panchayats and according to the provisions of Rules of 1995, the appeal would lie before the Collector against an order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat.

¶36

8) Evidently, petitioner was appointed by Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Malkhaorda and her services were terminated by the Project Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, District Janjgir Champa vide order dated 4.8.2020 therefore in my opinion, the appeal would lie before Collector, Janjgir Champa.

¶37

9) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, as there is efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this writ petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed . However, petitioner would be at liberty to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is preferred, it is expected that the appellate authority shall decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶40

A j i n k y a

Bhuwanmati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwanmati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ganesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Surya Kumar Panda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Punnalal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kant Tyagi Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

Anil Kumar Kanwar (Died) Through Lrs. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamal Mallik Vs State of Chhattisgarh