Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Moriom Nesha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 December, 2021
02
07.12.2021
Ct. No.23
(NB)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 16323 of 2021
Moriom Nesha & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Mujibar Ali Naskar
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
Ms. Kakali Samajpaty.
... for the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on
record.
The deficit Court fees have been paid.
The petitioners who are eleven in number say that they
were engaged as Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers
under the ICDS project. All of them have retired on attaining the
age of 65 years. The respective date of retirement of the
petitioners are provided in paragraph 4 of the writ petition.
The petitioners say that a government circular was
issued on 30th September, 2020 by the Joint Secretary, Women
and Child Development and Social Welfare Department,
Government of West Bengal by which the retiring age of the
Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers were kept
unchanged i.e. 65 years but the date of retirement was fixed to
be the last date of the month in which such worker and/or helper
2
attained the age of 65 years. The memo also provides for an one-
time terminal grant of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) to
each and every Anganwadi workers and/or Anganwadi helpers
from 30th September, 2021 and onwards. All the petitioners have
retired prior to 30th September, 2021 and as such does not come
within the ambit of the said memo, which is apparently
prospective i.e. from 30th September, 2021 and onwards.
The petitioners say that they have been discriminated as
Anganwadi workers and/or Anganwadi helpers who have done
the same job but are retiring on and from 30 th September, 2021 is
entitled to an one-time terminal benefit.
This decision is a policy matter involving financial
implications. The decision of the State Government as appears
from the memo dated 30th September, 2021 is unambiguous. The
decision reflected therein should be construed to have been
taken in a conscious manner after considering the financial
implication. The interference in matters involving judicial review of
policy matters involving complex economic issues is on a very
limited score. No patent illegality is observed in the policy
decision of the State government, which admittedly involved an
economic decision. Interfering into such a policy matter will
amount to transgressing into a domain of administrative matters
left to the executive. The law has been well laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Arun Kumar Agrawal
vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 1 and
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India &
Ors. reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561.
3
Considering the matter in the light of the observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying the ratio to the
case in hand, I do not find any scope of interference in the
matter. The writ petition is, therefor, devoid of merits and is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Since I have not called for any affidavits, allegations made in
the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the
respondents.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
