[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Tripura High Court

Smt. Anjali Biswas vs The State Of Tripura on 9 January, 2026

                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                              AGARTALA

                           WP(C) 129 of 2025

Smt. Anjali Biswas,
W/o Sabinoy Acharjee, R/o Vill & P.O. Dalugaon,
P.S. & Sub-division: Kailashahar,
Dist. Unokoti, Tripura, Pin-799280.
                                                          ---Petitioner.
                                Versus

1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the
Secretary, Social Welfare and Social Education, Govt. of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010.

2. The Secretary,
Department of Social Welfare and Social Education, Govt. of Tripura, New
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010.

3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban,
P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010.

4. The Director,
Social Welfare and Social Education Malancha, Ujan Abhoynagar,
Agartala, West Tripura.

5. Child Development Project Officer, Kailashahar District
Headquarter ICDS Project, Kailashahar, Unokoti District,
Tripura.

6. The Union of India, to be represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Women and Child Development, Govt. of India,
Shastriya Bhawan, New Delhi.

                                                         ---Respondents.
                        BEFORE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

For the Petitioner(s)          : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
                                 Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate.
                                 Mr. B. Majumder, Dy.SGI.
Date of hearing and date of
delivery of Judgment & Order : 09.01.2026
                                      2




                                     YES NO
Whether fit for reporting        :
                                         


                    JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman,

appearing for the petitioner; learned counsel, Mr. H. Sarkar, appearing

for the State-respondents and learned Dy.SGI, Mr. B. Majumder,

appearing for the respondent-Union of India.

2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as

an Anganwadi Worker vide Memorandum dated 25.02.1986, issued by

the Director of Social Welfare and Social Education, Tripura. Thereafter,

on her satisfactory service, she was promoted to the post of Supervisor,

ICDS vide Memorandum dated 02.06.2023 issued by the Education

(Social Welfare & Social Education) Department, Govt. of Tripura.

Thereafter, she went on superannuation on 30.03.2024 afternoon from

the post of Supervisor, ICDS.

3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on her retirement her

post-retiral benefits including pensionary benefits, gratuity and leave

encashment were not provided to her by the State-respondents.

Therefore, she sent one representation on 09.05.2024 to the Director of

Social Welfare and Social Education.

4. According to the petitioner, she did not receive any reply of

said representation and therefore, filed one writ petition before this Court

bearing No.WP(C) 684 of 2024, which was disposed of on 13.11.2024

by a co-ordinate bench of this Court with the following order:-

"[4] Upon hearing the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that, if the petitioner is eligible and entitled for the reliefs as sought for, the request of the petitioner be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and as per procedure as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

[5] It is made clear that the above order is passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

In view of the above observation and direction, the present petition is disposed of. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand closed."

5. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman submits that the

copy of the said judgment was duly communicated to the respondents but

no response was received from them. Therefore, the petitioner has

approached this Court again through this writ petition.

6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the State-respondents

that as a Supervisor, ICDS, the petitioner did not complete the required

qualifying service of 10 years and therefore, she was not entitled to get

pension and moreover, her promotion was ad hoc promotion, based on

the promotional policy, issued by the State Govt., dated 22.06.2021, and

as such, she is not entitled to get any benefit of gratuity or other

pensionary benefits.

7. Learned counsel, Mr. H. Sarkar, appearing for the State-

respondents, submits that only for about one year the petitioner served as

a Supervisor, ICDS Project and her service rendered as Anganwadi

Worker, cannot be taken into account and thus, she is not entitled to get

any pensionary benefits, gratuity and leave salary.

8. Considered the submissions of learned counsels of both

sides. It appears that earlier some of the Anganwadi Workers who were

promoted to the post of Supervisor, ICDS had approached this Court

having similar grievance that they were not provided with the benefit of

pension and other post-retiral benefits and this Court vide judgment

dated 24.01.2017, decided the matter in Case No.WP(C) 71 of 2011

titled as Smt. Sandhya Banik & Ors. vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.

along with another writ petition. The said case was disposed of with a

direction that the State-respondents would have to process the cases of

the petitioners for pensionary benefits after taking into account 50% of

their services rendered as Anganwadi workers, and thereafter to pay the

pensionary benefits to them accordingly.

9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman submits that said

judgment was not challenged by the State, rather, they had complied with

the same.

10. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has also placed

one notification dated 1st December, 2025, issued by the G.A. (P&T)

Department, Govt. of Tripura, whereby it was decided by the State that

all promotions allowed as per the promotional policy of 2021 shall be

treated as regular promotion with effect from the ad hoc promotion for

the purpose of extending all service and retiral benefits as per respective

extant rules. The relevant portion of the policy decision of the State

Govt. is extracted here-in-below:

"Whereas, the Promotion Policy, 2021 has been carefully examined by the Government and after due

consideration, it has been decided to modify the said Policy as follows: -

i) All promotions allowed as per the Promotion Policy, 2021 shall be treated as regular promotion with effect from the date of ad-hoc promotion for the purpose of extending all service and retiral benefits as per respective extant rules. Also, the benefits of fixation / protection of pay, allowances, etc. after such treatment, shall be provided to an employee entitled otherwise, subject to the outcome of SLP No. 19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

ii) All pensionary benefits, including leave encashment, shall also be extended to employees on the last pay of the post from which they have retired / will retire from service on superannuation or otherwise, after availing ad-hoc promotion subject to the outcome of the SLP No. 19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Also, if any employee dies after availing ad-hoc promotion as per the Promotion Policy, 2021, his/her legal heirs shall also be entitled to pensionary benefits, including leave encashment etc. as permissible, subject to the outcome of SLP No. 19765-

19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.

All Departments and Heads of Departments are therefore, requested to take action accordingly."

11. In view of above position, the issue raised by the

respondents cannot be taken into consideration as the matter of addition

of 50% past service of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has already

been decided by this Court in the above said earlier decision, and that has

reached the finality and has become res judicata and binding on the State.

12. As it appears, already the Govt. has extended the benefit of

regular promotion to all the promotees who were promoted on ad hoc

basis as per promotional policy of 2021, and it has been directed by the

State to all the departments to extend all promotional benefits, including

leave encashment to the retired employees or to their legal