Tripura High Court
Present vs For The on 27 August, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 242 OF 2021
Smt. Silu Pal
Vrs.
The State of Tripura & 6 Ors.
Present:
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
For the respondent (s) : Mr. P.K.Dhar, Sr. G.A.
Mr. A. Dey, Advocate.
Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. S.G.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
O_ R_ D_ E_ R
27.08.2021
Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A. assisted by Mr. A.
Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State and Mr. B.
Majumder, learned Asst. S.G. appearing for the respondents-Union of
India.
[2] Admittedly, the petitioner has been working as Anganwadi
Workers under the respondents-State. The petitioner was asked to go on
retirement on attaining the age of 60 years i.e. w.e.f. 31.05.2021. The
claim of the petitioner is that she should be allowed to continue her
service till her attaining the age of 65 years in view of the communication
dated 22.10.2012 under reference No.1-8/2012-CD-I, which speaks as
under:
"e. Relieving AWWs/AWHs on completion of 65 years of age. The
existing guidelines do not provide uniform age limit for their retirement.
Rather this has been left to the State Governments to decide. Thus, as on
date on age has been prescribed for dispensing with the services of
AWW/AWH. Prescribing maximum age limit of 65 years for an
AWW/AWH has been supported by most of the State Governments at
various forums. In view of the above, a uniform policy decision would be
undertaken to discontinue the services of AWW/AWH at the age of 65
years and EPC would ensure its implementation in all the States/UTs."
[3] A learned Single Judge (S. Talapatra, J) of this Court taking a
note of the said decision of the Central Government to increase the age of
retirement of the AWWs at 65 years instead of 60 years had allowed one writ
petition filed by similarly situated AWWs directing the respondents not to
discontinue the services of the said writ petitioners till they attain the age of 65
years. In another writ petition, the learned Single Judge (S. Talapatra, J) stayed
the operation of the impugned order asking the said AWWs to go on retirement
after completion of 60 years.
[4] While deciding a bunch of writ petitions being [WP(C) No. 886
of 2019 titled as Rina Purkayastha v. State of Tripura & Others] and other
writ petitions filed by some AWWs, the learned Single Judge had observed
thus:
"9. Having noticed that view, the State governments have not
accepted the upper age limit of discharge, the said memorandum
dated 22.10.2012 has been issued by the Ministry of Women and
Child Development. After the stock taking exercise, the Union of
India in the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare with the
Ministry of Women and Child Development, by virtue of the said
memorandum dated 22.10.2012 has proposed that the age for
discharge of AWWs/AWHs on completion of 65 years of age. As
some of the state governments have not accepted the maximum
age of 65 years, the Central government is on their process to take
a uniform policy and that appropriate policy in that regard would
be taken by prescribing a uniform age of discharge in all states
and UTs. As, the State government has taken the decision that the
age of discharge for AWWs/AWHs will be 60 years whereas the
most of the states have accepted the age of 65 years, it would be
appropriate for the Central Government in the Ministry of Women
and Child Development to adopt a uniform policy in terms of the
clause (e) of the communication dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure-1 to
the reply filed by the respondents). Such uniform policy in respect
of age for discharging AWWs/AWHs should be framed for greater
welfare of those AWWs/AWHs within a period of four months
from the date when they would receive a copy of this order from
the petitioners or from this court. Till then, if the petitioners have
crossed the age of 60 years be allowed to continue.
"10. As the Central Government has realized that AWWs/AWHs
are working in such a condition that they do not have any job
security or the benefit on the discharge. A miniscule of them gets
absorption or appointment to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). The
government employees are having all those benefits. Thus, in the
considered view of this court, the class of AWWs/AWHs cannot be
compared with the others working in the other spheres i.e. under
the regular establishments and enjoying the benefits on
retirement.
"11. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs".
[5] A bare reading of the said judgment crystallizes the fact that
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the State-respondents to
make a policy decision regarding fixing the age limit of retirement of
such AWWs and AWHs and till then, the services of the AWWs and
AWHs would not be discontinued.
[6] I find no reason to deviate from the said direction and
observation made by the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Accordingly, I direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve
under them till the State-Government comes up with new policy decision
determining the age of retirement of such AWWs/AWHs.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed in the
above terms and thus disposed.
JUDGE
sanjay
