Smt. Mani Rani Deb Dhar vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 237 Tri

                                  Page - 1 of 19


                         HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                               AGARTALA

                          WP(C) No. 277 of 2021

     Smt. Mani Rani Deb Dhar
     Wife of Sri Ananta Dhar, resident of Saidarpara, P.O.-Saidarpara, PS
     Fatikroy, District Unakoti Tripura.
                                                        ----- Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus
1.   The State of Tripura,
     represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, Agartala,
     Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin-799006.

2.   The Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
     Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat,
     P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

3.   The Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
     Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat,
     P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

4.   The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
     Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat,
     P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

5.   The Director of Social Welfare and Social Education,
     Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, PO Abhoynagar, Agartala, PS
     East Agartala, District West Tripura, Pin-799005

6.   The Child Development Project Officer,
     Kumarghat ICDS Project, Kumarghat, District Unakoti Tripura

7.   The Union of India
     Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child
     Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-
     110001
                                                        ----- Respondent(s)

WP(C) No. 278 of 2021

Smt. Archana Pal Dey Wife of Sri Sachindra Dey, resident of Kumarghat, Near Nidebi Girls School, P.O & PS Kumarghat, District North Tripura.

----- Petitioner(s) Versus

1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, Agartala, Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban, Pin-799006.

Page - 2 of 19

2. The Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

3. The Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, Pin-799006

5. The Director of Social Welfare and Social Education, Government of Tripura, Abhoynagar, PO Abhoynagar, Agartala, PS East Agartala, District West Tripura, Pin-799005

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Kumarghat ICDS Project, Kumarghat, District Unakoti Tripura

7. The Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-

       110001
                                                            ----- Respondent(s)

       For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.

       For Respondent(s)               :     Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. SG.
                                             Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. GA.
       Date of Hearing                 :     11th January, 2022.
       Date of Pronouncement           :     28th February, 2022.
       Whether fit for reporting       :     YES


                                     _B_E_F_O_R_E_

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

JUDGMENT & ORDER

[Per S.G. Chattopadhyay], J

The matter arises from a reference made by the learned

Single Judge by his common order dated 15.11.2021 passed in WP(C)

No.277 of 2021 and WP(C) No.278 of 2021.

Page - 3 of 19

[2] By means of filing the writ petitions before the learned

Single Judge, the petitioners who were Anganwadi workers under the

scheme known as Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)

challenged a notification of the State Government whereby their age of

retirement was fixed at 60 years and sought for a direction to the State

Government to let them continue in service till they attain 65 years of

age in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Women and Child Development and circulated to the State

Governments across the country under communication No.1-8/2012-

CD-I dated 22.10.2012. For such reliefs, they relied on the judgment

and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by a Division Bench of this court in

WA No. 173 of 2021 [The State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Rina

Purkayasta].

[3] The petitioners also relied on another order dated

27.08.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge (A. Lodh, J) of this

court in the case of Smt. Silu Pal vs. The State of Tripura & 6 Ors.

[WP(C) No.242 of 2021]. The learned Single Judge (A. Lodh, J) by

the order under reference has held that judgment rendered by the

Division Bench in Rina Purkayashta (supra) and the judgment

rendered in Smt. Silu Pal (supra) are not in consonance with the

policy decision of the Government and the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs.

Ameerbi & Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 681 and on this ground

learned Single Judge (A. Lodh, J) has referred the matter to the Chief Page - 4 of 19

Justice to constitute appropriate bench to resolve the issue. Accordingly

this bench has been constituted to decide the matter.

[4] The factual context, in greater detail, is as under:

Smt. Mani Rani Deb Dhar and Smt. Archana Pal Dey,

petitioners before the learned Single Judge were engaged as Anganwadi

workers for implementation of child development programmes under

the Integrated Child Development Services shortly known as ICDS

within the State of Tripura. In the course of their engagement, they

were given training and entrusted with duties and responsibilities which

included implementation of menu based nutrition programme for

expectant mothers and children upto the age of 6 years, non formal

pre-school activities of children of the age group of 3-5 years, home

visits and collection of various data with regard to nutrition of children

and expectant mothers etc. By a memorandum dated 15.05.2015

issued from the Education (Social Welfare & Social Education)

Department, the State Government decided that the upper age limit of

the honorarium based Anganwadi workers would be 60 years and under

the said memorandum the respective child development project officers

were asked to issue notice to the Anganwadi workers informing them

that they would be disengaged on their attaining 60 years of age. For

convenience, it would be appropriate to reproduce the said

Memorandum which is as under:

Page - 5 of 19

"Government of Tripura Education (Social Welfare & Social Education) Department Malancha, Ujan Abhoynagar, Agartala, Tripura Pin-799005 No.F.46(54)-ICDS/SW19/2015/7780(69) Dated, Agartala, the, 15/05/2015 MEMORANDUM The upper age limit of the Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) under Education (SW& SE) Department who are honorarium based workers has been fixed up to 60(sixty) years.

2. In view of above all the CDPOs are instructed to take following actions immediately under intimation to this Department:

a) The AWWs and AWHs those who had crossed 60 years, very old & firm and still working may be replaced with married/widow women of the locality immediately by arranging substitute engagement till the date of engagement made by the concerned selection committee as per guideline.

b) The CDPO shall issue a notice to the AWWs and AWHs before at least 2(two) months informing about the reaching of 60 years of age and disengagement of service.

c) The concerned selection committee shall finalize the replacement of AWWs and AWHs well before the retirement of the existing AWWs and AWHs who will attain 60(sixty) years of age.

Sd/- illegible (D. Darlong) Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura"

[5] Pursuant to such memorandum, writ petitioner Mani Rani

Deb Dhar, Anganwadi worker of Saidarpara, West A.W. centre was

informed by memo dated 12.10.2020 issued from the office of the Child

Development Project Officer, Kumarghat that she was going to retire

from service on 25.12.2020, afternoon on her attaining the age of

superannuation. The said memorandum reads as under:

Page - 6 of 19

"Government of Tripura Office of the Child Development Project Officer Kumarghat ICDS Project Unakoti, Tripura No.F.1(27)-CDPO/KGT/2015/359(5) Dated, Kumarghat, the, 12/10/2020 MEMO Smt. Mani Rani Deb, Anganwadi Worker, Saidarpar West A.W. Centre under the Child Development Project Officer, Kumarghat ICDS Project, Kumarghat Unakoti Tripura is going to be retired from honorarium service on 25/12/2020 (A/N) after attaining the age of superannuation.

(SUJIT DAS) Chief Development Project Officer Kumarghat ICDS Project.

Kumarghat Unakoti Tripura"

[6] Similarly, petitioner Archana Pal Dey was informed by a

separate Memo dated 12.10.2020 that she would retire from service on

31.12.2020 afternoon on her attaining the age of superannuation.

[7] Aggrieved thereby, petitioners approached this court by

filing separate writ petitions for the following reliefs:

"As to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari should not be issued quashing/setting aside the Notification vide No.46(176)-ICDS/SWE/2012/1557(94) dated 07.07.2012 issued by Respondent No.2, Memorandum vide No.F.46(54)-ICDS/SWE/2015/7780 (69) dated 15.05.2015 issued by Respondent No.3 whereby age of retirement of AWWs & AWHs was fixed on attaining 60 years and Memorandum vide No.F.1(27)- CDPO/KGT/2015/359(5) dated 12.10.2020 issued by Respondent No.6 directing the petitioner to handover the complete charge and fixed the date of retirement on 25.12.2020 after completion of her 60 years.

AND As to why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the State Respondents not to discontinue the petitioner from service after completion of her 60 years of age and allow her to continue service in the post Page - 7 of 19

of Anganwadi Worker (AWW) till she attains 65 years of age.

AND In the interim be pleased to staying effect and operation of the Memorandum vide No.F.1(27)-

CDPO/KGT/2015/359(5) dated 12.10.2020 issued by Respondent No.6 and direct the respondents not to terminate the petitioner from the present post till disposal of the writ petition."

[8] On behalf of the petitioners, it was submitted before the

learned Single Judge that the Anganwadi workers were engaged for

implementation of various child development projects under Integrated

Child Development Services (ICDS for short) and 90% of the funding

for such scheme in the States situated in North Eastern region including

Tripura comes from the Central Government and the Central

Government has in its guidelines circulated to various State

Government under a communication dated 22.10.2012 has urged the

State Governments to formulate a uniform retirement age which pegs

the age of retirement at 65 years. Counsel of the petitioner also

contended before the learned Single Judge that pursuant to such

guidelines issued by the Government of India, most of the States raised

the age of disengagement of Anganwadi workers upto 65 years. As

noted, counsel of the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of this

Court in Smt. Silu Pal (supra) and Rina Purkayashta (supra) and

urged for similar reliefs to the petitioners.

[9] The State counsel on the other hand contended before

the learned Single Judge that the State Government had consciously

taken a policy decision that the age limit of 60 years for Anganwadi Page - 8 of 19

workers was appropriate and it did not require any change. The State

counsel also argued before the learned Single Judge that determination

of age limit for Anganwadi workers was the prerogative of the State

Government. Therefore disparity in respect of their retirement age

prevailing in various states, if any, would not constitute any violation of

the Constitutional scheme of equality. For deciding the matter, the

learned Single Judge also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court rendered in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs.

Punra Devi reported in (2015) 11 SCC 788 and quoted the following

paragraph from the judgment:

"7. Be it noted, the Integrated Child Development Scheme(ICDS) is a Centrally sponsored flagship scheme of the Government of India which envisages six services i.e. supplementary nutrition, immunization, health check- up, referral services, pre-school non-formal education and nutrition and health education. The AWWs and AWHs are community based frontline honorary workers under the ICDS, and are central figure in helping the community as to the needs of their children by delivery of services under the Scheme. They are required to be appointed from the local community who come forward to render their services, on part-time basis in the area of child care and development. As per the guidelines, selections of AWWs and AWHs require that the women appointed for such services should be from local village and acceptable to the local community."

[10] Apart from the above, the learned Single Judge also

discussed the ratio decided by the Apex Court on the issue of 'per

incuriam' decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and

came to the conclusion that the decisions rendered by this court in the

case of Rina Purkayashta (supra) upheld by a Division Bench of this Page - 9 of 19

court in WA No.173 of 2021 and the judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge (A. Lodh, J) in Smt. Silu Pal (supra) were not in

consonance with the policy decision adopted by the State Government

with regard to retirement age of the Anganwadi workers as well as law

laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors.

vs. Ameerbi & Ors. (Supra) and therefore the learned Single Judge

was of the view that the said judgments of this court were required to

be revisited. Under such observations, the learned Single Judge referred

the matter to the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate bench to

resolve the issue. Relevant extract of the judgment of the learned

Single Judge is as under:

"15. I have again perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Rina Purkayastha (supra) and other connected writ petitions as well as the judgment passed by this court in the case of Silu Pal (supra). I have noticed that in none of these judgments there was any reference of the case of Ameerbi (supra) and the policy decision of the State Government not to extend the age of retirement of AWWs and AWHs beyond 60 years. Thus, it has come to light that the State Government has already taken a policy decision rejecting the suggestion that the age of retirement of AWWs and AWHs should be uniform in all the States. A policy decision of the legislature is held to be good unless and until the court is convinced that said policy decision suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. In the instant petitions, the petitioners have not taken any plea that the policy decision of the Government determining the age of retirement of AWWs and AWHs at 60 years is irrational and unconstitutional. In my further opinion, this court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to ask the State legislature to extend the age of retirement of AWWs from 60 to 65 years. Accordingly, in view of the policy decision of the State Government relating to the retirement age of AWWs and AWHs at 60 years, I am Page - 10 of 19

unable to grant any relief to the petitioners of the instant petitions.

16. According to me, the judgments passed by learned Single Judge in Rina Purkayastha (supra) and Silu Pal (supra), upheld by a Division Bench of this court, are not in consonance with the policy decision of the Government and the decision of Ameerbi (supra) and thus, require to be revisited. Hence, I deem it imperative to refer the matter to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Tripura to constitute an appropriate bench to resolve the issue involved in these writ petitions finally.

17. Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice immediately."

[11] Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Raju Datta, learned

advocate has contended before us that while deciding a batch of writ

appeals by a common judgment in the case of Rina Purkayashta

(supra), this court recorded a specific finding that since 90% of the

funding for implementation of ICDS scheme comes from the Central

Government, the State would hardly have any burden on its exchequer

in implementing the policy of the Government of India for raising the

age of retirement of Anganwadi workers upto 65 years. Counsel

contends that having viewed that in many States across the country

relieving age of Anganwadi workers were raised to 65 years, this court

in the case of Rina Purkayashta (supra) found no rationale as to why

the State of Tripura should have taken a different view. According to

Mr. Datta, learned counsel, the learned Single Judge had taken an

erroneous view that the decision in Rina Purkayashta Vs. The State

of Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.886 of 2019] called for interference

since the same did not conform to the policy decision adopted by the

State Government.

Page - 11 of 19

[12] The State counsel on the other hand has contended

before this court that the State Government in a meeting of the Council

of Ministers after due discussion and deliberation has taken a policy

decision that upper age limit of Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi

helpers would be fixed at 60 years. Counsel has contended that

Anganwadi workers are engaged under a scheme and determination of

their age of disengagement is the prerogative of the State Government

and the State Government after taking into consideration all relevant

aspects including the guidelines issued by the Government of India in

this regard has taken such decision which has been duly communicated

to the Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi helpers engaged under

various ICDS projects. Counsel has further contended that raising of

their age of disengagement upto 65 years would cast a huge burden on

the State exchequer and therefore such claim of Anganwadi workers

should be discarded.

[13] Mr. B. Majumder, learned A.S.G. appearing for

respondent No.7 contends that direction of this court to the Central

Government issued in the case of Rina Purkayashta Vs. The State of

Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.886 of 2019] to adopt a uniform policy

within a period of 4(four) months in respect of age of retirement of

AWWs/AWHs should be struck down by this court since the Anganwadi

workers as well as the Anganwadi helpers are engaged by the State

Government in implementation of ICDS within the State and the State Page - 12 of 19

Government holds the prerogative for determination of their age of

disengagement.

[14] We have examined the record and considered the

submissions made at the Bar.

[15] In the case of Rina Purkayashta Vs. The State of

Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.886 of 2019] the learned Single Judge

was of the view that Anganwadi workers as well as Anganwadi helpers

work in such a condition that they do not have any job security. A

miniscule of them gets the opportunity for absorption for appointment

to the post of Supervisor, ICDS. Moreover, there is no post retiral

benefits for them whereas the government employees working in

various establishments under the State Government enjoy the benefits

of promotion, upgradation of scale and various post retiral benefits.

Learned Single Judge, therefore, felt it appropriate to direct the State

Government to let the Anganwadi workers/Anganwadi helpers to

continue beyond 60 years of age until a uniform policy was framed by

the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India

with regard to their relieving age pursuant to Clause (e) of the

communication dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit

of the respondents in the said case) and viewed that such uniform

policy for greater welfare of AWWs/AWHs should be framed within a

period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

[16] Aggrieved by the said order, the State preferred an

appeal which was heard by a Division Bench of this court in WA 173 of

2021 along with other connected appeals and as noted, those appeals Page - 13 of 19

were disposed of by this court by a common judgment dated

29.06.2021. Having found no reason to interfere with the decision of

the learned Single Judge, this court in WA 173 of 2021 dismissed the

appeal viewing as under:

"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."

Page - 14 of 19

[17] As discussed, by the judgment under reference, the

learned Single Judge has held that the judgment rendered in the case of

Smt. Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021 and

connected appeals] as well as the judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge of this court [A. Lodh, J] in the case of Smt. Silu Pal

[WP(C) No.242 of 2021] (supra) are not in consonance with the

policy of the State Government and the ratio decided by the Apex Court

in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi & Ors.

(Supra) and therefore the said decisions should be revisited by this

court.

[18] We are not in agreement with the learned Single Judge

because a coordinate bench of this court in the case of Smt. Rina

Purkayastha (Supra) has elaborately dealt with the issue and decided

the matter recording adequate reasons. We are also of the view that

that the question of burden on State exchequer raised by the State

counsel is devoid of merit because admittedly 90% of the funding for

implementation of various schemes under ICDS comes from the Central

Government and need of replacement would arise only when an worker

is disengaged. Moreover, the view of the Central Government with

regard to the relieving age of AWWs/AWHs under communication dated

22.10.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) also favours the idea of

raising their relieving age which is 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 Page - 15 of 19

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."

[19] Relying on such policy formulated by the Government of

India, the learned Single Judge in the case of Rina Purkayashta Vs.

The State of Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.886 of 2019] directed the

State Government to allow the petitioners who had crossed the age of

60 years to continue until a uniform policy with regard to their relieving

age was adopted by the Central Government in terms of the guidelines

issued by them. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.

Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021 and connected

appeals] accepted the findings of the learned Single Judge and

dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the State respondents.

[20] There is no denial of the fact that even though the ICDS

schemes are implemented by the State Government within the State,

90% of the financial burden is borne by the Central Government and it

would not be possible to implement such scheme without the

remarkable contribution of AWWs/AWHs. As frontline workers, they are

helping the community by rendering valuable services under ICDS. The

Hon'ble Apex Court also recognized their extremely important role and

contribution to the society in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors.

vs. Ameerbi & Ors. (Supra) in the following words:

Page - 16 of 19

"14. We are not oblivious to the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important. They are supposed to make significant contribution to the society. They, we understand, are required to carry out a large number of activities, primary amongst them being the welfare of the children."

[21] We cannot also agree with the finding of the learned

Single Judge that judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Rina

Purkayashta Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. [WP(C) No.886 of

2019] and Smt. Silu Pal [WP(C) No.242 of 2021] (supra) are

required to be revisited since the ratio decided by the Apex Court in the

case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi & Ors. (Supra) was

not followed. In the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi

& Ors. (Supra) which has been relied on by the learned Single Judge

to arrive at the conclusion in the case under reference, the issue was

completely different. In that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with an

issue as to whether an Anganwadi worker has the right to contest an

election. The Apex Court held that holder of a civil post cannot contest

an election and since the Anganwadi workers are not holders of any civil

post they are entitled to contest an election. As such, law laid down in

State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi & Ors. (Supra) has no

application to the instant case.

[22] Apart from the above, the learned Single Judge was also

of the view that since the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of

this court in Smt. Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021

and connected appeals] and the judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge in case of Smt. Silu Pal are not in consonance with the Page - 17 of 19

policy decisions of the State Government, those decisions should be

revisited. In other words, since those decisions amounted to review of a

policy decision of the State Government, learned Single Judge was of

the view that those are to be reconsidered by this court.

[23] It is true that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of

decisions has observed that courts should not indulge themselves in

matters involving domains of the executive and legislature in the name

of judicial review. But, it would not be correct to say that policy decision

of the Government is beyond the sphere of judicial review.

[24] In the case of Delhi Development Authority & Anr. vs.

Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors. reported in

(2008) 2 SCC 672 the Apex Court held that an executive order termed

as a policy decision is not beyond the realm of judicial review.

"64. An executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review..................."

[25] From the judgments cited to Supra, it would appear that

even though the courts are discouraged to transgress into the fields

reserved for the legislative and the executive, they are not powerless to

undertake judicial review of administrative actions in appropriate cases.

[26] As noted, coordinate bench of this court while dealing

with the appeal in the case of Smt. Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA Page - 18 of 19

No.173 of 2021 and connected appeals] viewed, inter alia, that it

would not be appropriate to allow the State authorities to discard and

disregard the Government of India guidelines for implementation of the

ICDS scheme since 90% of the funding comes from the Government of

India coffer for such scheme. The division bench, therefore, dismissed

the appeal and issued direction to the State Government to let the

anganwadi workers continue beyond 60 years until a decision is taken

by the Central Government in this regard.

[27] We are in complete agreement with the findings of the

Division Bench of this court rendered in WA No.173 of 2021 and other

connected appeals as well as the judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge in the case of Smt. Silu Pal [WP(C) No.242 of 2021]

(Supra) which has been decided following the ratio laid down in Smt.

Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021 and connected

appeals] (Supra). Since, the instant writ petitions involve identical

facts and law and they are squarely covered under the decisions of the

Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Rina Purkayastha &

Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021 and connected appeals] (Supra) we do

not find any reason to take a different view in the instant writ petitions.

[28] Accordingly, the petitions stand allowed in terms of the

decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of

Smt. Rina Purkayastha & Anr. [WA No.173 of 2021 and

connected appeals].

Page - 19 of 19

[29] In terms of the above, the issue referred by the learned

Single Judge stands resolved and the petitions are disposed of. Pending

application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ

Rudradeep