Tripura High Court
W.A. No.173/202 vs Smt. Rina Purkayastha And Another on 29 June, 2021
Page 1 of 7
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
1. W.A. No.173/2021
The State of Tripura and others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Rina Purkayastha and another
-----Respondent(s)
Connected with
2. W.A. No.170/2021
The State of Tripura and others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Kalpana Biswas
-----Respondent(s)
3. W.A. No.172/2021
The State of Tripura and others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Laxmibala Bhowmik
-----Respondent(s)
4. W.A. No.174/2021
The State of Tripura and others
----Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Reba Das and another
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. S.G.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Order
29/06/2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)
These appeals are filed by the State Government to challenge
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2021 passed in WP(C)
No.886 of 2019 and connected petitions.
The controversy before the learned Single Judge was about the
correct age of retirement for Anganwadi workers. All the petitioners were
engaged in Child Development Programmes implemented by the State
Government as formulated by the Central Government, Ministry of Women
and Child Development. These programmes which are referred to as
Integrated Child Development Services, Scheme (ICDS Scheme, for short)
are framed to implement different welfare measures undertaken by the
Central Government for the development of young children typically in pre-
school age group. The record would suggest that the funding of the scheme is
in the proportion of 75% as to 25% from the Central Government and State
Government respectively for the rest of the country, whereas for the States
situated in north-eastern region such funding is in the pattern of 90:10
percent. Thus 90% of the funding for the scheme comes from the coffers of
the Central Government. The State Government contributes barely 10%
thereof.
All the petitioners have been, since long agitating the question of
their age of retirement. The State Government had prescribed the age of 60
years for retirement whereas the Central Government has prescribed the age
of 65 years bearing in mind various factors including the fact that they do not
have job security and several other benefits attached to normal Government
services. In particular, along with the communication dated 22.10.2012 the
Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Development had
annexed detailed guidelines for implementation of the said scheme. With
respect to the age of retirement under the said guidelines it was provided 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 no 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."
Previously, when some of the aggrieved Anganwadi workers
approached the High Court by filing writ petition seeking higher retirement
age, the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 29.06.2019 passed in
WP(C) No.730 of 2019 requested the State Government to take into account
the said Government of India policy and to take a fresh decision and till then
despite crossing the age of 60 years the petitioners concerned would be
continued in service. As per the said directions the Government of Tripura
took up a fresh decision but stuck to its original view that the correct age of
retirement for Anganwadi workers would be 60 years, whereupon fresh batch
of petitions came to be filed which were decided by impugned common
judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge in the impugned
judgment held and observed as under:
"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."
We do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the
learned Single Judge. We have noticed that the ICDS scheme is being
implemented by the State Government, however, as per the guidelines laid
down by the Government of India and more importantly for which 90% of the
funding comes from the Government of India revenues. The State contributes
barely 10% of such expenditure. In such background when the Government of
India policy specifically formulated for such purpose provided that all State
Governments must formulate a uniform policy of age of retirement which
pegs the age of retirement at 65 years, we find no reason why the Government
of Tripura should have taken a different view. No specific reasons have been
cited for sticking to its original viewpoint that all Anganwadi workers must
retire at the age of 60 years. The question of burden on exchequer raised by
the counsel for the State before us during the oral arguments is completely
unsustainable. As noted, 90% of the expenditure is covered by the Central
Government funding. The State contributes barely 10%. Secondly, whether a
person retires at the age of 60 years or 65 years, we do not see how it
fundamentally changes the expenditure burden of the Government. If an
employee retires at the age of 60 years, there would be an earlier need for
replacement. If the same person continues till the age of 65 years, the
requirement of engaging a new person to substitute him or her would be
delayed by that period. The service is not pensionable and thus, there is no
question of the pensionable service being higher with higher retirement age
leading to greater pension liability for the State Government. In any view of
the matter, without there being strong reasons cited by the State Government,
it would not be possible for the State authorities to discard and disregard the
Government of India guidelines for implementation of the scheme since 90%
of the funding comes from the Government of India coffers. Age of
retirement of the employees engaged in the scheme is essential part of
implementation of the scheme.
In the result, appeals are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
