Smt. Mohani vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 13155 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3283/2017

Smt. Shanta Devi

----Petitioner Versus State and Ors.

----Respondents Connected With

1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3275/2017

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3280/2017

3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3281/2017

4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3282/2017

5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3284/2017

6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3285/2017

7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3287/2017

8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3288/2017

9. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3289/2017

10. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3290/2017

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/11/2022

The present petitions have been filed against the common

order dated 21.07.2016 whereby the appeal of respondent

department was allowed and the order dated 08.06.2015 passed

by the Controlling Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

has been set aside. Vide order dated 08.06.2015, the Controlling

Officer had allowed the claims of the petitioners whereby they

were held to be entitled to gratuity amount.

(2 of 4) [CW-3283/2017]

The case of the petitioners is that they are the Anganwari

Workers and are entitled to the gratuity amount. Learned counsel

for the petitioners relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court passed in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs. District

Development Officer Dahod & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC

2119. In Maniben's case (supra), the same issue as to whether

the amount of gratuity payment was raised and after considering

all the objections as raised by the respondents, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under :

"81. The definition of 'wages' is very wide. It means all emoluments which are earned by an employee on duty. Thus, the honorarium paid to AWWs and AWHs will also be covered by the definition of wages. As AWWs and AWHs are employed by the State Government for wages in the establishments to which the 1972 Act applies, the AWWs and AWHs are employees within the meaning of the 1972 Act. In view of the said Rules of the Gujarat Government, the Anganwadi centres are not under the control of the Central Government. Therefore, the State Government will be an appropriate Government within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act. Accordingly, a person or authority appointed by the appropriate Government for the supervision and control of AWWs and AWHs will be the employer within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2.

82. I may add here that the Government of India by a notification dated 3rd April 1997 has notified educational institutions as establishments under clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act. In the Anganwadi centres, the activity of running a preschool for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is being conducted. It is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running preschools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act.

83. For the reasons recorded above, I have no manner of doubt that the 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs and AWHs. In the impugned Judgment, the Division Bench was swayed by the view taken by this

(3 of 4) [CW-3283/2017]

Court in the case of Ameerbi which was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union (Regd.) (supra). These decisions, for the reasons recorded earlier, have no bearing on the issue involved in these appeals. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the 1972 Act was applicable to AWWs and AWHs. The Controlling Authority has granted simple interest at the rate of 10% on the overdue gratuity amounts. All eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to the benefit of interest.

84. Hence, I allow the appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment dated 8th August 2017 of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court and restore the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6th June 2016 in Special Civil Application no. 1219 of 2016 and other connected cases by holding that the provisions of the 1972 Act apply to AWWs and AWHs working in Anganwadi centres. Within a period of three months from today, necessary steps shall be taken by the concerned authorities in the State of Gujarat under the 1972 Act to extend benefits of the said Act to the eligible AWWs and AWHs. We direct that all eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date specified under sub-section 3A of Section 7 of the 1972 Act."

Learned counsel for the respondents although could not

refute the submission that the case of the petitioners would be

squarely covered by the ratio as laid down in Maniben's case

(supra) but he raised two objections firstly, that the Central

Government as well as the Finance Department of the State have

not been impleaded as party respondents in the present petition

and secondly, that circular dated 19.08.2021 specifically provides

that the post of Anganwari Worker is an honorarium post and

therefore, they are not entitled to any gratuity amount.

So far as the objection regarding non-impleadment of the

Central Government or the Finance Department as party to the

present petition is concerned, the same was not raised before any

(4 of 4) [CW-3283/2017]

of the authorities below and therefore, could not be adjudicated by

the authorities below. The same therefore cannot be permitted to

be raised now. So far as the second ground of the Anganwari

Worker being working on an honorarium post is concerned, the

said issue was very much raised in Maniben's case (supra) and

the same has been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Apex

Court. Therefore, this Court need not go into this said issue.

In the opinion of this Court, the controversy rests squarely

covered by the judgment passed in the case of Maniben's case

(supra).

In view of the ratio as laid down in Maniben's case (supra),

the present writ petitions are allowed.

The respondent authorities are directed to release the

amount qua the gratuity to the petitioners as adjudicated/allowed

vide order dated 08.06.2015 within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of copy of the present order.

(REKHA BORANA),J 113-123/AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)