JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 18th April, 2007, passed by the Writ Court in CWP No. 255 of 2002, titled as Tripta Devi versus Child Development Project Officer & another, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent herein came to be allowed (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment"). 2. The writ petitioner-respondent herein was engaged as Anganwari Worker. Her services were terminated vide order, dated 14th December, 2001, was subject matter of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent herein, was allowed and the order of termination was quashed. 3. In terms of the guidelines (Annexure R-4), three written notices were to be issued, which were not served upon the writ petitioner-respondent herein and the Writ Court, after noticing the said fact, quashed the termination order. 4. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General, frankly conceded that three written notices were not issued, but the notice issued contains the details. 5. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Writ court has passed a well reasoned judgment, needs no interference. 6. The writ petitioner-respondent herein was not in position and has not performed her duties. It is not, however, pleaded that she was not gainfully engaged during the said period. 7. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to modify the impugned judgment by providing that the writ petitioner-respondent herein is not entitled to back-wages/honorarium from the date of termination till today, but is to be counted for all service benefits. 8. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified and the appeal is disposed of alongwith all pending applications.