JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - In this appeal the appellant challenges the judgment dated 15.5.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010 and prays that the said judgment be set aside and W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010 be allowed quashing relevant annexures and passing appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts of this case are that the appellant joined as Anganwadi worker on 20.2.1982 under Athagarh I.C.D.S. project. While working there on 25.5.1990 she made a representation to Respondent No. 4 for transferring her to work as such under Cuttack City I.C.D.S. project with full service protection. The said representation was enclosed as Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. The above noted representation dated 25.5.1990 was duly forwarded and recommended by the Sub-Collector, Athagarh. Accordingly, on 27.6.1990 as per the direction of Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 5 passed the order that Respondent No. 4 has been pleased to adjust the appellant in Cuttack City I.C.D.S. project with immediate effect. The order dated 27.6.1990 was filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. It is important to note here that in the order under Annexure-8 it was nowhere indicated that upon joining in the I.C.D.S. project in the Cuttack City, the entire service rendered by the appellant under Athagarh project from 20.2.1982 till 27.6.19990 would be wiped out. Pursuant to Annexure-8 vide order dated 28.6.1990 the appellant was relieved from her services in order to enable her to join in the new place of posting at Cuttack City I.C.D.S. project by Respondent No. 7 vide office order dated 28.6.1990. This order dated 28.6.1990 was filed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. Thereafter, on 29.6.1990 Respondent No. 6 gave the appellant a posting order at Anganwadi Centre in Bidanasi. This order dated 29.6.1990 was filed under Annexure-10 series of W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. Pursuant to the order dated 29.6.1990, the appellant joined at Anganwadi Centre, Bidanasi-1. While so, during 2008 some junior Anganwadi workers like Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 11 were promoted as Lady Supervisor and vide office order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-3) were posted as Lady Supervisor in different I.C.D.S. project. Pursuant to the order dated 29.6.1990, the appellant joined at Anganwadi Centre, Bidanasi-1. While so, during 2008 some junior Anganwadi workers like Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 11 were promoted as Lady Supervisor and vide office order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-3) were posted as Lady Supervisor in different I.C.D.S. project. According to the appellant the above noted juniors were promoted as Lady Supervisor on the basis of a gradation list which showed joining of the appellant as Anganwadi worker on 26.2.1982 instead of 20.2.1982. According to the appellant while she started her career as Anganwadi worker with effect from 20.2.1982 Respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 started their career as Anganwadi worker on 24/27.2.1982, 22/27.2.1982, 25.2.1982 and 6.11.1985 respectively. According to the appellant after issuance of Annexure-3 she filed a number of representations before Respondent No. 4, who had issued Annexure-3. Ultimately, Respondent No. 4 referred the matter to the Government and vide Annexure-5 it was made clear that the seniority of the appellant would be counted from 29.6.1990 i.e. the date on which she joined as Anganwadi worker at Bidanasi-1 Anganwadi Centre under Cuttack (Urban) I.C.D.S. project. Against this the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 6328 of 2009 wherein she prayed for quashing of Annexure-5 and many other Annexures and further made a prayer that direction be given to the authorities for correction of final gradation list incorporating 20.2.1982 as the date of initial appointment and further that direction be given to the authorities to promote the appellant as Lady Supervisor with effect from 5.2.2008. The appellant also made a number of other prayers. On 5.3.2010 the above noted writ petition was disposed of directing Respondent No. 4 to conduct a detailed enquiry in order to find out the exact date of joining of the appellant at Athagarh. Later on, on 19.3.2010 this court modified the order dated 5.3.2010 by directing Respondent No. 3 to conduct an enquiry in place of Respondent No. 4. In the enquiry, the Respondent No. 3 came to a positive conclusion that the date of joining of the appellant as Anganwadi worker is 20.2.1982 and not 26.2.1982. Later on, on 19.3.2010 this court modified the order dated 5.3.2010 by directing Respondent No. 3 to conduct an enquiry in place of Respondent No. 4. In the enquiry, the Respondent No. 3 came to a positive conclusion that the date of joining of the appellant as Anganwadi worker is 20.2.1982 and not 26.2.1982. According to the appellant despite such clear cut finding, the Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-4 intimated that in view of the order of the Government under Annexure-5 the seniority of the appellant would be counted from 29.6.1990 though her date of joining in the cadre of Anganwadi worker would be reflected as 20.2.1982. This Annexure-4 was filed as Annexure-6 in W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. Challenging the above noted order under Annexure-4 and a host of other orders the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010 on 27.8.2010 with a prayer for correction of final gradation list taking into account her confirmed date of joining as Anganwadi worker on 20.2.1982 for the purpose of counting inter-se seniority instead of 29.6.1990. She also inter alia prayed for promotion to the post of Lady Supervisor with effect from 5.2.2008 when her juniors were promoted vide Annexure-3. W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 15.5.2013 vide Annexure-1. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. Heard Mr. Maheswar Satpathy, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bishnu Prasad Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for official Respondents and Mr. Prajit Kumar Pradhan for the Respondent No. 11. While learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied on the judgment rendered in Kalyani Mohanty's Case i.e. judgment dated 26.4.2013 passed in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011, learned Addl. Government Advocate while defending the impugned judgment mainly argued that as per Annexure-B/4 attached to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the transfer of Anganwadi worker has been prohibited since 1984 and in such background when appellant was adjusted in Cuttack I.C.D.S. project in 1990 the same should be treated as fresh appointment. Therefore, according to him the learned Single Judge has committed no wrong in dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant as her seniority can only be considered from 29.6.1990 and not from 20.2.1982. Therefore, according to him the learned Single Judge has committed no wrong in dismissing the writ application filed by the appellant as her seniority can only be considered from 29.6.1990 and not from 20.2.1982. He further submitted that as per Annexure-AA/2 filed along with Rejoinder total experience of Anganwadi worker is to be taken into account only while considering her eligibility for the post of Supervisor or for fixation of honorarium not for fixation of seniority. Thus the said Annexure has no application to the present case. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 11 also supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed no wrong by passing the impugned judgment under Annexure-1. 3. It may be noted here that by now Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 have already retired and Respondent No. 11, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category continues to work as Lady Supervisor. In challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge the counsel for the appellant mainly relies on a single Bench decision dated 26.4.2013 of this Court as rendered in the case of Kalyani Mohanty vs. State and others passed in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the case of the appellant is squarely covered by judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011. It may be noted here that the judgment under Annexure-1 was rendered on 15.5.2013. To a question put by this Court as to why the appellant could not draw the attention of the learned Single Judge to the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not have the knowledge of the said judgment and she came to know about the judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011 only after the judgment was passed in her case i.e., W.P.(C) No. 14851 of 2010. In Para. 5 of the writ appeal, the appellant has referred to the judgment dated 26.4.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011. Though counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, no substantive reply has been given by them to the averments made at Para. 5 of the writ appeal. In reply to Para. Though counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, no substantive reply has been given by them to the averments made at Para. 5 of the writ appeal. In reply to Para. 5 of the writ appeal, a vague reply has been given that the averments made therein do not have any relevance to the subject matter of the present appeal. Thus, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not disputed that in an identical case judgment was rendered on 26.4.2013 by this Court in favour of the petitioner therein while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011. Despite notice Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 did not enter appearance probably because they have retired in the meantime. However, Respondent No. 11 though has made her appearance but has chosen not to file her reply. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Single Judge has mainly relied on the guideline dated 31.12.1984 under Annexure-B/4. It further appears that the later guideline dated 2.12.1987, which has been filed as Annexure-AA/2 as adopted by the State Government under Annexure-AA/1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant were unfortunately not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. At least the State should have brought this to the notice of learned Single Judge. The Annexure-AA/2 was issued to the Secretary in charge of Department dealing with I.C.D.S. of all States. This letter dated 2.12.1987 made it clear that earlier when an Anganwadi worker was shifted from one State to another State, her experience in the first State as Anganwadi worker was not counted in the second State for the purpose of fixation of honorarium, age relaxation etc.; with the issue of letter dated 2.12.1987, it was clarified that an Anganwadi worker should be given the benefit of her total experience as an Anganwadi worker. Such experience was/is to be cumulative in that post, rather than experience as Anganwadi worker in any particular State or Project. It may be noted that the crucial word used in the circular dated 2.12.1987 is "etc". As per Black's Law Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word "etc" is "and other things". Such experience was/is to be cumulative in that post, rather than experience as Anganwadi worker in any particular State or Project. It may be noted that the crucial word used in the circular dated 2.12.1987 is "etc". As per Black's Law Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word "etc" is "and other things". Thus when the circular dated 2.12.1987 says that whenever earlier an Anganwadi worker was shifted from one State to another State or from one project to another project, her experience in the first State/Project was not counted in the subsequent State/Project for the purpose of fixation of honorarium, age relaxation etc, it means that earlier, her experience in the first State/Project was not being counted for fixation of honorarium, age relaxation and other things in the second State/Project. This was sought to be remedied vide circular dated 2.12.1987 by way of a broad clarification that whenever an Anganwadi worker would be shifted from one State/Project to another State/Project, she should be given the benefit of her total cumulative experience as Anganwadi worker for fixation of honorarium, age relaxation and all other things, which obviously includes protection of seniority arising out of past service. The circular dated 2.12.1987 being a beneficial circular, the above interpretation would be in tune with it's spirit. In such background, a restrictive interpretation of the same by confirming the counting of past service only for the purpose of considering her eligibility for appointment to the post of Supervisor or fixation of honorarium would not be proper. Thus, even when an Anganwadi worker is shifted from one State/Project to another, her experience in the earlier State/Project ought to be counted for the purpose of seniority. It is surprising that the said circular which was issued much after the circular dated 31.12.1984 (Annexure-B/4) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Thus, it seems after issuance of Annexure-B/4 there has been a sea change in the policy of the Government and basing on such circular/order Annexure-AA/2, Kalyani Mohanty's case as indicated earlier was allowed by another learned Single Judge of this Court. Further, a perusal of Annexure-AA/1 makes it clear that in the same year i.e., 1987 the circular under Annexure-AA/2 was circulated to the Collectors, all V.L.Ws., all C.D.P.Os., by the State Government for their information and necessary action. Further, a perusal of Annexure-AA/1 makes it clear that in the same year i.e., 1987 the circular under Annexure-AA/2 was circulated to the Collectors, all V.L.Ws., all C.D.P.Os., by the State Government for their information and necessary action. It is extremely important to note here that the appellant was shifted from Athagarh I.C.D.S. to Cuttack I.C.D.S. project during 1990 i.e., much after issuance of Annexures-AA/1 and AA/2. This implies that by that time (i.e. 1990) shifting of Anganwadi worker from one project to another project and counting their total experience in a cumulative manner was firmly established. Now coming to Kalyani Mohanty's case, it appears that Kalyani initially joined as Anganwadi worker at Brahmagiri in the district of Puri during 1979. She worked as Anganwadi worker at Palanka and Sahaspur Anganwadi Centre and later on she was transferred to work under Child Development Project Officer, Bhubaneswar during 1983. There the authorities while drawing the gradation list of Anganwadi worker ignored the service rendered by her from 1979 to May, 1983, i.e., prior to her joining at Bhubaneswar. Thus, the gradation list was prepared taking into account 1983 as her initial engagement as Anganwadi worker instead of 1979. Despite representation when nothing was done she moved W.P.(C) No. 15667 of 2011 relying on Annexure-AA/2. This Court disposed of the writ application directing the official Respondents to treat her engagement as Anganwadi worker from 1979 instead of 1983 and to correct the gradation list accordingly. In our opinion, the principle as laid down in Kalyani Mohanty's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. Further, for the reasons stated earlier, total service experience of appellant has to be taken into account for counting seniority. Since Kalyani Moyanty's case and circular under Annexure-AA/2 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, at one point we were thinking of remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for re-hearing. Further, for the reasons stated earlier, total service experience of appellant has to be taken into account for counting seniority. Since Kalyani Moyanty's case and circular under Annexure-AA/2 were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, at one point we were thinking of remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge for re-hearing. However, considering the fact that the appellant has been fighting her litigation since 2009 and since learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she is going to retire in April, 2014, if she earns a promotion as Lady Supervisor, we think it proper to dispose of the writ appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge under Annexure-1 and by directing the official Respondents to correct the gradation list of Anganwadi workers by taking into account 20.2.1982 as the date from which her seniority in the cadre of Anganwadi worker should be counted. Accordingly, we direct that the final gradation list under Annexure-6 be appropriately modified. Consequently, we also quash the order under Annexure-5 and Annexure-4 to the extent Annexure-4 directs that the seniority of the appellant would be fixed from 29.6.1990 and not from 20.2.1982. We further command that the correction of the gradation list should be carried out by the official Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. within 15 days and thereafter within four weeks, official Respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Lady Supervisor in accordance with law from the date when her juniors were given promotion. This direction to consider her case for promotion should not be treated as a precedent as the same is being issued in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that she would retire during April, 2014 in case she earns a promotion to the post of Lady Supervisor. Final Result : Allowed