RAMSHREE Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.[2] THE appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19/11/2009, passed in W.P.No. 4045/07.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 filed a petition before this Court challenging her order of termination of service on 1.6.2000. She pleaded in the petition that she was appointed as Anganwadi worker vide order dated 3.1.1992 by the Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project, Kelaras, District Shivpuri. Initially, the respondent was appointed at Kenwaya and thereafter she was shifted at Anganwadi Centre, Kherona. She continued in service upto the year of 2000 and thereafter vide order dated 1.6.2000, her appointment was terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing or conducting any enquiry. The respondent further submitted that one Smt. Kamlesh filed a petition before this Court challenging her termination of her service as Anganwadi worker without giving any opportunity of hearing or conducting any enquiry. This Court allowed the petition vide order dated 16.5.2005 passed in writ petition No. 104/203. The respondent further contended that because the order of termination was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing when conducing enquiry, hence, the order of termination was illegal. In the aforesaid writ petition the appellant resisted the claim of the respondent No. 4/original petitioner on the ground that the respondent No. 4 filed the writ petition after a period of seven years, hence, there was delay and laches on the part of the respondent. It was further contended that meanwhile the respondents also elected Panch of the Gram Panchayat. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent vide impugned order on the ground that the service of the respondent was terminated without conducting any enquiry or giving any opportunity of hearing, hence, the order of termination was bad in law. The learned Single Judge further observed that a similar petition W.P.No. 104/2003 has been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, hence, the petition of the respondent also deserve to be allowed. On the basis of aforesaid findings, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition of the answering respondent.

(3.) From the facts of the case, it is clear that the service of the respondent No. 4 from the post of Anganwadi Worker was terminated vide order dated 1/6/2000 and she filed the petition before the High Court in the year 2007 challenging the order of termination, nearly after a period of seven years. Although she explained the reason of delay in filing the petition that another petition of similarly situated employee against the order of termination was allowed by the High Court, hence, the petition of the original petitioner-respondent No. 4 be also allowed.