Meema Akhtar v. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Social Welfare)

ORDER

04.03.2026

¶01By virtue of an order No. CDPO/ICDS/Lgt/Estt/16/561-64 dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Child Development Project Officer,

(CDPO), ICDS, Langate, the petitioner came to be engaged on a monthly honorarium basis as an Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center, Kultura Gogree Mohalla.

¶02The petitioner's engagement came to be questioned by one Masrat Akhter by way of a writ petition-SWP No. 1063/2016 preferred before this Court. Said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by virtue of an order dated 05.09.2022.

¶03In said order dated 05.09.2022, this Court came to observe that the dismissal of said writ petition-SWP No. 1063/2016 shall not come in the way of the eligible candidates who might challenge selection of the petitioner herein, figuring as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition-SWP No. 1063/2016 by filling separate petition/s. Regular

¶04The engagement of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker, in terms of order No. CDPO/ICDS/Lgt/Estt/16/561-64 dated

11.05.2016, thereafter became the subject matter of challenge in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.

¶05Said appeal was preferred by one-Zahida Parveen

¶06Two persons namely Shamshada Akhter and Masrat Akhter came forward with a writ petition-WP(C) No. 597/2020 wherein they came to challenge the outcome of the said appeal in which the petitioner's engagement as an Angawadi Worker had been challenged by Zahida Parveen before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.

¶07Said Writ petition-WP(C) No. 597/2020 came to suffer dismissal in terms of writ court judgment dated 20.12.2024.

¶08A Letters Patent Appeal-LPA No. 13/2025 preferred by the writ petitioners against said judgment also came to suffer the fate of dismissal in terms of order dated 24th February, 2025.

¶09It is in aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, claiming that despite being engaged as an Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Kultura Gogree Mohalla, she has not been paid the honorarium with effect from May 2016, along with all consequential benefits and for that purpose maintains the present petition for earning a writ of mandamus unto the writ respondents.

¶10In the present context of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 3, i.e., Child Development Project Officer, ICDS

Langate, District Kupwara, to consider the case and claim of the petitioner that she was duly engaged as an Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre Kultura Gogree Mohalla in terms of Order No. CDPO/ICDS/Lgt/Estt/16/561-64 dated 11.05.2016, and despite having rendered her services, she has not been paid the honorarium along with the consequential benefits arising out of such engagement.

¶11The Child Development Project Officer ICDS Langate is supposed to be fully aware of the state of affairs relating to running of Anganwadi Center Kultura Gogree Mohalla particularly in terms of the engagement and posting of an Anganwadi Worker for the said Center.

¶12Once the petitioner was duly engaged for said assignment as an Anganwadi Worker, the question as to whether she suffered any disengagement by an express order is also an aspect which the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Langate is required to examine.

¶13In case the petitioner did not continue to carry out her engagement as an Anganwadi Worker, it is also for the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Langate, to clarify whether any alternate arrangement was put in place for the said centre.

¶14All these aspects are required to be duly considered and responded to by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), ICDS Langate by passing an order bearing reasons which would then enable the petitioner to know about the true state of affairs relating

to her status as an Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center Kultura Gogree Mohalla.

¶15Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Child Development Project Officer, Langate District Kupwara to consider the case and claim of the petitioner within a period of one month by passing a speaking order whereupon in case the petitioner would still feel prejudiced after the passing of such order, then she shall be well within her right to come up with the writ petition notwithstanding the disposal of the present writ petition.

(RAHUL BHARTI)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR

04.03.2026 Bisma Jan.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 92/2026 CM(512/2026). Meema Akhtar. …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi, Advocate. VERSUS Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, Government Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.