SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner as her representation as directed by this Court was not being decided by the respondent in spite of the order passed by this court in the contempt petition. The petitioner prayed in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to reinstate her as Asha Sahayogni and allow her to render duties in Anganwari Center Putli-2, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, with all consequential benefits from the date of termination. Further prayer has been made to pay arrears of withheld honorarium from 20.01.2015 to the date of termination along-with interest. Brief facts which deserve to be noted are that the petitioner was appointed as Asha Sahayogni on honorarium basis on 23rd September, 2010 and her services were dispensed with orally without passing any specific order to this effect. It appears that the petitioner has been demanding her salary/honorarium from 20th January, 2015. She preferred Writ Petition No.10756/2015 before this Court, which came to be decided vide order dated 02.09.2015 requiring the petitioner to approach the Director, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur, by way of representation. The petitioner, in compliance thereof, preferred the representation on 11.09.2015. But it appears that the respondent did not decide the representation and therefore she filed Contempt Petition No.1618/2016, wherein again an opportunity was given to the petitioner to make a detailed self contained representation and it was also observed that if necessary orders are not passed by the authority, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits. Therefore when her second representation was also not decided, she has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) Notices were issued on 3rd July, 2017 with directions that an affidavit shall be filed personally by the Director for non compliance of the order of this Court, failing which he or she was directed to remain present in the Court on the next date. Order has now been issued by Director on 21st July, 2017 holding the termination of the petitioner as unjustified and contrary to law. Directions have been issued to release her arrears of honorarium within a period of seven days and directed her to be reinstated back on honorarium basis as Asha Sahayogni. Affidavit of the Director, ICDS, Jaipur has already been filed stating that the deponent has joined as Director, ICDS, Jaipur, on 10th May, 2017 and has come to know about the same only after factual report was brought to her knowledge.
(3.) While appreciating the action taken by present Director, ICDS, Jaipur, the only aspect which needs to be noted is denial of benefits for the intervening period. The period during which the petitioner has not served, she has been denied the honorarium as is revealed from the order dated 21st July, 2017. Authorities have reached to the conclusion that the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 24th August, 2016 was not justified and was illegal thus the petitioner has been deprived of working on account of the wrongful action of the respondents. It is not a case where the petitioner was not ready to serve and therefore in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of "J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr.: (1998) 9 SCC 559 , the petitioner would be entitled to receive full salary/honorarium for the intervening period. At the same time it is also directed that the Director shall fix the accountability for the said wrongful order and also to recover the amount which is to released to the petitioner, from the concerned officer who denied the petitioner to perform her duties.;