Disposed

Smt. Manju Kakati Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/5596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding the release of an Anganwadi worker from voluntary work, the Court directed the Integrated Child Development Project Officer to reconsider the impugned order after considering the petitioner's reply and providing an opportunity of hearing, completing the exercise within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the reply dated 10.09.2015 and take a decision after giving an opportunity of hearing within three weeks; impugned letter kept in abeyance.

Smt. Manju Kakati Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010025102016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5596/2016

¶5

SMT. MANJU KAKATI NATH

¶6

W/O- SRI BHABESH NATH, R/O VILL.- BARUAJANI, P.O.- BARUAJANI, P.S.KAMALPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM GUWAHATI- 1.

¶10

3:THE INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KAMALPUR-RANGIA INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT RANGIA KAMRUP.

¶11

4:THE DIST. SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶12

5:RENU BARUA W/O- SRI KANAK BARUA R/O VILL.- BARUAJANI P.O.- BARUAJANI P.S.- KAMALPUR DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶13

6:SAFLUR ALI

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

S/O- POHAR ALI R/O VILL.- BARUAJANI P.O.- BARUAJANI P.S.- KAMALPUR DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.C GOSWAMI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SOCIAL WELFARE

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

07.12.2021

¶21

Heard Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the State respondents.

¶22

The petitioner’s case in brief is that he was appointed as Anganwadi worker at Seuji Silpi Sangha (Nathpur Anganwadi Center, Baruajani) on 01.12.2009 and the petitioner joined the said post on 10.12.2009. After completion of about 5 years as an Anganwadi worker, the respondent No. 3 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2015 to the petitioner stating that she was absent at the time of inspection made by the Supervisor. Also, the petitioner was absent on a number of days and no child was found in the Anganwadi Center. Further, no documents were found in the Center. The petitioner was accordingly asked to submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2015.

¶23

The petitioner’s counsel submits that a Reply dated 10.09.2015 was submitted by the petitioner in reply to the Show Cause Notice, which was addressed to the respondent No. 3. However, without considering the reply of the petitioner, the petitioner was released from her voluntary work vide the impugned letter dated 30.05.2016.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petition can be disposed of, if a direction is given to the respondent No. 3 to consider the Reply dated 10.09.2015,

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

submitted by the petitioner in reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2015.

¶27

Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that he has got no objection if the prayer of the petitioner’s counsel is allowed.

¶28

Keeping in view the fact that this case has been kept pending in this Court for approximately 5 years and also due to the fact that there is no affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, this Court is of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 will consider the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.09.2015, submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Consequently, the impugned letter No. C.D.P.O (K.P.R) T.R.M 14/2016/94 dated 30.05.2016, issued by the respondent No. 3 is kept in abeyance till a final decision is taken by the respondent No. 3.

¶29

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Manju Kakati Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Kakati Nath v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mannan Vs Assam Public Service Commission and 4 Ors.

Fatema Begum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ajay Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Habibur Rahman Khan and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Rinku Boro Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sunil Kumar Force No. 901710135 Insp/Steno Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.