SANJUKTA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is a post -Graduate and she joined as an instructor in the Anganwadi Training Centre (for short ('AWTC) under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme (for short 'ICDS) which was being run by the opp.party No.3, Utkal Navajeevan Mandal, a non -Government Voluntary Organization. The Principal of the said training centre resigned on 31.8.1998 and the petitioner being the senior most instructor officiated as the Principal of the said centre with effect from 1.9.1998. However, she was confirmed as Principal by opp.party No.3 with effect from 1.7.2000.

(2.) THE petitioners case is that the ICDS Scheme is sponsored by the Central Government and implemented through the State Governments. It gets cent percent financial assistance for recurring and non -recurring expenses from the Central Government and the State Government only provides funds under the minimum needs programme for supplementary nutrition. The policy with regard to the conditions of service of the employees working under such scheme as well as the planning and financial control of the ICDS scheme are formulated by the Department of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. The said department issues directions from time to time to the State Governments for the effective implementation of such scheme. Notice/directions are also issued by the Central Government from time to time with regard to implementation of the scheme and the Central Government also fixes the remuneration of the training staff and others by formulating annual budget. The petitioner claims that by letter dated 19.5.1999, the said department of the Central Government intimated the State Government being opp.party No.1 regarding the revised honorarium to be paid to the beneficiaries of the AWTCs by introducing the World Bank Assisted ICDS Training Programme Project known as Project UDISHA along with other administrative instructions, financial norms and project implementation plans etc. to be effective from 1.4.1999. The petitioner claims that as per the letter dated 1.5.1999 of the Government of India under Annexure -2 to the writ petition, the State Government was intimated that it has been decided by the Department of Women and Child Development, Government of India that part -time instructors may to be recruited any more by the AWTCs and the existing part -time instructors may be regularized as per the rules. Guidelines were formulated for opening/continuing and closing down training centres under the Project UDISHA as enumerated in Annexure -3 to the writ petition. In Clause -(xiii) of the guidelines under Annexure -3, it was provided that after analyzing the requirements of AWTCs, the State can close down an AWTC by giving them reasonable notice and intimation in this regard should be sent immediately to the Government of India. The petitioner alleges that when the training centre run by the opp.party No.3, was continuing and approval of the Central Government for continuing the same for the year, 2006 -07 was pending, the opp.party No.3 without any intimation from the State Government or Central Government for closing down the said training centre, issued the letter dated 6.3.2006 to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that by letter dated 27.8.2005 of the State Government, running the said training centre was extended up to 31.3.2006 and since the State has not extended the said period, the training centre will be closed down after 31.3.2006. It was further stated therein that in the event any letter will be received from the State Government in this regard, the petitioner shall be made aware of the same, dues of the petitioner would be paid within fifteen days after receiving the same from the Government, the house occupied by the petitioner may be kept by her till 30.4.2006 and thereafter no residential accommodation will be provided and the petitioner will be required to vacate the said premises. Being aggrieved by the letter dated 6.3.2006 under Annexure -4, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the said letter under Annexure -4.

(3.) THE opp.party No.3 has also filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner.