calcutta high court

Calcutta High Court: In an appeal preferred against the transfer of an Anganwadi worker, a division bench comprising of Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray,* JJ., dismissed the appeal and upheld the transfer of the appellant as it was found to be in the interest of public service due to the appellant’s negligence and misconduct in her previous position.

Factual Matrix

In the instant matter, the appellant is an Anganwadi worker appointed on 05-07-2002 in Andal Integrated Child Development Services by the Director of the Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal. She was transferred from North Jambad-36 to Tilaboni Dangal-140 by a memo dated 29-07-2021.

The appellant filed a written complaint with the local police about a theft at the Anganwadi center on 27-06-2022, which was not accepted. She also submitted a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Asansol, on 30-06-2022, but no action was taken. On 12-07-2022, the appellant found that the Child Development Officer and Supervisor had handed over her position to another person at North Jambad-36.

The appellant filed a writ petition to set aside the transfer order and reinstate her at North Jambad-36, which was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to this appeal.

Moot Point

  1. Whether the transfer of the appellant, an Anganwadi worker, from North Jambad-36 to Tilaboni Dangal-140 lawful?

  2. Whether the appellant’s transfer was punitive in nature?

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant contended that the government memorandum governing Anganwadi worker recruitment does not provide for transfers. It was contended that the distance between North Jambad and Tilaboni Dangal is significant, and the scheme usually appoints local people, making this transfer against the purpose. The appellant further contended that her transfer was punitive as it followed her complaint about theft.

State’s Contentions

The State contended that complaints from local people and guardians of beneficiaries about the appellant’s negligence and misconduct led to a show cause notice, moreover, the Sector Supervisor found irregularities in appellant’s duties. It was contended that the transfer was in accordance with government orders allowing transfer in cases of genuine public grievances. It was further contended that the appellant refused to accept show cause letters and was absent from duty, also she did not submit food forms or progress reports for June 2022.

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that the government memorandum does not explicitly address transfers, but it emphasizes the importance of appointing local individuals to provide better services. The Court opined that absence of an express provision for transfers does not prohibit the authority from considering transfers in the interest of public service.

The ourt found that the appellant’s performance did not align with the required standards. Complaints from local people and beneficiaries indicated negligence, misbehavior, and irregular attendance.

The Court cited case laws emphasizing the importance of appointing Anganwadi workers from the local community in order to provide better service to the public, and when that purpose is compromised, the concerned authority can make appropriate transfer orders. The Court stated that public interest may justify transferring an Anganwadi worker who disrupts public services.

The Court observed that appellant’s attitude and performance did not align with the responsibilities of an Anganwadi worker and upheld the transfer as it was made in the interest of public service and dismissed the appeal.

Court’s Verdict

The Court dismissed the present appeal, and affirmed the impugned judgment. No costs are awarded, and any interim orders are vacated.

[Suily Banerjee v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2760, order dated 14-09-2023]

*Judgment by Justice Apurba Sinha Ray


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Supratim Dhar, Mr. Shuvro Prokash Lahiri, Mr. Tirupati Mukherjee, Mr. S. Dhar, Mr. K. Ganguly, Ms. S. Chakraborty, Counsel for the Appellant

Mr. Lalit Mohan Mahata, Mr. P.B. Mahata, Counsel for the Respondent/State

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.