ORDER : 1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) to quash Order issued by respondent No. 2, Mission Director, ICDS, J&K, vide endorsement No. SDM/ICDS/262/2700-6 dated 26.02.2015 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001, being devoid of any merit; by issuance of writ of certiorari; (ii) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001 and also to pay salary to the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker and also to give consequential benefits of service to the petitioner and to treat the period with effect from the date of disengagement from service to the date the petitioner re-joins the duty “on duty, by issuance of writ of mandamus; (iii) to issue directions to the respondents to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Nathyal Ward No. 3 for which the petitioner is duly selected by issuance of writ of mandamus; (iv) to declare Order issued by the respondent No. 2, Mission Director ICDS, J&K vide endorsement No. SDM/ICDS/262/2700-6 dated 26.02.2015 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for reinstatement on the post of Anganwari Worker on which the petitioner was working prior to the issuance of order of dismissal dated 12.10.2001, being devoid of any merit, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and Rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus. 2. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner and stated in the petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Anganwari Worker after undergoing Anganwari training courses from 01.08.1986 to 31.10.1086, besides other training courses from time to time conducted in the year 1993 & 1994. 3. 2. The facts under the cover of which the aforesaid reliefs have been prayed by the petitioner and stated in the petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Anganwari Worker after undergoing Anganwari training courses from 01.08.1986 to 31.10.1086, besides other training courses from time to time conducted in the year 1993 & 1994. 3. It is being stated that 13 years of services of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker came to be appreciated by the Child Development Project officer, Basohli (for short “CDPO”) and a certificate in this regard also came to be issued on 15.03.1999. 4. It is being next stated that the petitioner applied for maternity on 01.11.2000, whereafter during the currency of the said leave on account of an ailment, the petitioner which could not resume her duties but submitted an application for extension of her leave and after recovering from the said ailment the petitioner approached the respondents for resuming her duties on 14.09.2005, however, the CDPO Basohli did not allow the petitioner to join her duties, which compelled the petitioner to file a petition being SWP No. 1625/2005 before this Court, in response to which petition the respondents after being summoned, in their objections stated that the petitioner stands disengaged in terms of disengagement order dated 12.10.2001, as a result whereof the petition came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 23.03.2007 with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition and challenge the said order of disengagement, whereafter the petition filed writ petition being SWP No. 861/2007 before this Court challenging her disengagement order dated 12.10.2001 which petition also came to be disposed of by this Court on 01.10.2013 and while quashing the disengagement order of the petitioner dated 12.10.2001, this Court provided a liberty to the respondent to pass appropriate order after following the procedure. 5. 5. It is being next stated that the respondents did not comply with the aforesaid order dated 01.01.2013 passed in SWP No. 861/2007 supra compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition before this Court being COA(S) No. 233/2014, in response to which a compliance report came to be filed by the respondents/contemnors therein, wherein it came to be stated that the case of the petitioner stands considered and rejected in terms of order dated 26.02.2015, whereafter the said contempt petition came to be closed, providing a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the consideration order dated 26.02.2015, which order has been now impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition. 6. The petitioner has maintained the instant petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed against the provisions of law and rules arbitrarily and without following the procedure prescribed under law, inasmuch as, without conducting an inquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner came to be engaged as an Anganwari Worker, however, it is being stated that the petitioner during her working as such, with effect from 3/1997 to 31.10.2000, the petitioner availed leave of 532 days inspite of the fact that only 20 days casual leave is permissible to be availed by an Anganwari Worker, working on honorarium basis. 8. It is being further stated that the petitioner came to be sanctioned a maternity leave without honorarium from time to time and while seeking extension of such leave, the petitioner came to be called upon to produce the medical certificate in support thereof, which the petitioner failed to produce, as a consequence whereof the petitioner came to be disengaged due to her continuous unauthorized absence. 9. It is being further stated that on account of falling vacant of the position of Anganwari Worker owing to the disengagement of the petitioner herein one Smt. Shamim Akhter came to be selected against the said position after undertaking a process of selection. 10. 9. It is being further stated that on account of falling vacant of the position of Anganwari Worker owing to the disengagement of the petitioner herein one Smt. Shamim Akhter came to be selected against the said position after undertaking a process of selection. 10. It is being admitted in the objections by the respondents that the petitioner herein filed SWP No. 861/2007, wherein the disengagement order of the petitioner came to be quashed and the respondents came to be provided a liberty to pass appropriate orders after following the procedure and that pursuant to the said order the case of the petitioner was duly considered and upon being found devoid of merit came to be rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 26.02.2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the counsel for the respondents pertaining to the case. 11. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner admittedly came to be engaged by the respondents as an Anganwari Worker on an honorarium basis against payment of Rs.1500/- per month. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner had applied for maternity leave for three months with effect from 01.12.1996 to 27.02.1997 which came to be sanctioned in her favour and thereafter the petitioner again applied for leave for one month with effect from 25.04.1997, whereafter the petitioner sent a telegram on 24.05.1997 seeking extension of her leave by one more month. Perusal of the record further reveals that the petitioner joined back on 01.07.1997 and thereafter again remained absent, however, an application came to be submitted by the petitioner for 15 days of leave which leave was not sanctioned. Record also tend to show that the petitioner thereafter again sought leave without honorarium w.e.f.01.12.1997 to 31.12.1997 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.07.1998 to 01.08.1998, followed by a telegram for extension of leave of one month w.e.f. 01.08.1998 to 30.08.1998 and thereafter w.e.f. 01.12.1998 to 31.12.1998, followed by one more Telegram for extension of one month leave w.e.f. 01.01.1999 to 30.09.1999 and thereafter again applied for one month leave without honorarium w.e.f. 01.07.1999 to 30.08.1999 followed by a telegram for extension of one month leave w.e.f. 01.10.1999 to 30.01.1999, which however, came to be extended vide order dated 30.08.1999. Record also shows that on 01.09.1999, the petitioner joined her duties back and again in the month of January, 2000 applied for one month leave through telegram w.e.f. 01.01.2000 to 31.01.2000 followed by telegram for extension of leave w.e.f. 01.02.2000 to 28.02.2000, whereupon the petitioner came to be informed by the respondent 4 that the leave cannot be extended and called upon her to resume duties as also to produce medical certificates vide letter dated 28.02.2000. 12. Record further reveals that on 07.03.2000 the petitioner joined back her duties and on 01.07.2000 she again applied for leave without honorarium for one month w.e.f. 01.07.2000 to 31.07.2000 and thereafter sought extension of leave for two months through telegram and after availing the said leave again submitted her joining on 01.09.2000 and thereafter again applied for leave on 01.10.2000 upto 30.11.2000, whereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 02.10.2000 came to be intimated by the respondent that the leave cannot be sanctioned and again came to be informed to resume her duties followed by another letter dated 09.11.2000, again called upon to resume her duties or else her service shall be terminated. 13. Record further tends to show that the petitioner did not resume back her duties, as a consequence whereof the services of the petitioner came to be terminated in terms of order dated 12.10.2001 for being unauthorizedly absent. 14. It is an admitted fact that the said disengagement order of the petitioner came to be set aside by this Court after the petitioner impugned the same in SWP No. 861/2007, however, this Court provided a liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders after following due procedure, having noticed that the disengagement order of the petitioner had been issued without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 15. Further perusal of the record reveals that in compliance to the order passed by this Court dated 01.01.2013, the Mission Director/respondent 2 herein issued an Order No. 84 of 2014 dated 23.12.2014 in terms whereof the District Programme Officer, Kathua came to be appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry against the petitioner and to submit a report within 15 days. Record further reveals that the said Inquiry Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 02.01.2015, calling upon the petitioner to explain her unauthorized absence during her working as Anganwari Worker. Record further reveals that the said Inquiry Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 02.01.2015, calling upon the petitioner to explain her unauthorized absence during her working as Anganwari Worker. Record reveals that besides serving the said show cause notice through speed-post upon the petitioner, a copy of said notice also came to be served upon her through a special messenger under proper receipt and in response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted her reply through her counsel, namely, Rajiv Gorkha dated 05.01.2015, wherein, it came to be stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position, both financially and mentally, to reply notice also in view of a contempt petition pending against the CDPO in this Court and further that the petitioner reserved her right to file a detailed reply before the respondents after resuming her duties as Anganwari Worker and also shall place on record the above subject letter before the Hon’ble Court in contempt petition for perusal of the Hon’ble Court. These facts, however, have been concealed by the petitioner in the instant petition and not a whisper has been made about the same. 16. Record further reveals that the Inquiry Officer after considering the aforesaid reply filed by the counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the entire case, submitted a detailed report to the respondent 2 vide report dated 28.01.2015, summarizing therein that the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent during the year 2000 and failed to produce any documentary evidence which would have entitled her to a leave to be sanctioned by the competent authority and thus, having failed as such, the services of the petitioner being honorary in nature cannot be restored, whereupon on the basis of the said report of the Inquiry Officer, the respondent 2 issued the impugned order. 17. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position in general and in particular that after the passing of the aforesaid order by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner and on 01.10.2013, the respondents admittedly have proceeded in the matter in tune with the directions passed by this Court in the aforesaid order by appointing an Inquiry Officer, which Inquiry Officer admittedly called upon the petitioner to explain her position to which the petitioner indisputably responded to by submitting a response through her counsel, however, failed to substantiate or justify her unauthorized absence. The respondents, seemingly, have followed the principles of natural justice and have consequently held the petitioner’s unauthorized absence justifying her disengagement as Anganwari Worker. The said exercise undertaken by the respondents has been, at the cost of repetition, undertaken pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 01.10.2013, essentially requiring the respondents to afford a post-decisional hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner having been extended and provided a chance to explain her position by the respondents and however, having failed to explain the same, the respondents cannot, but, be said to have proceeded in the matter fairly, reasonably, justly and legally. 18. Viewed thus, what has been considered, observed and analyzed herein above, there is no merit in the petition, which accordingly, dismissed along with connected application. 19. Record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is returned back.