1. Dispute over retirement age of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme — State policy of 60 years versus Central guidelines of 65 years. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 929
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
State of Tripura & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Rina Purkayashta & Anr. Etc. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3084-3087 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 23437-23440 of 2022), With Civil Appeal Nos. 3088-3093 of 2023 (Arising Out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 23785-23790 of 2022)
Decided On : 25-04-2023
Important Points
No mandamus could be issued to force a particular age of discharge on the state government when its policy was not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
ICDS - Age of Retirement - - The judgment discusses the entitlement of Anganwadi Workers / Anganwadi Helpers ('AWs'/'AHs') engaged under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme ('ICDS') to be continued in their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years against the existing policy of discharging them upon attaining the age of 60 years. The court considered the communication from the Ministry of Women and Child Development, which indicated a future course of ICDS implementation, making age of discharge as 65 years supported by most State Governments. The court also referred to precedents and case law related to central government regulations and uniform policies for special schools. However, the court held that no mandamus could be issued to force a particular age of discharge on the state government, especially when its policy was not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court affirmed that AWs/AHs engaged under ICDS were entitled to continue their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years, contrary to the state's policy of discharging them at 60 years.Finding of the Court:
The court found that no mandamus could be issued to force a particular age of discharge on the state government, especially when its policy was not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality.Issues:
Entitlement of AWs/AHs engaged under ICDS to continue their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years against the existing policy of discharging them at 60 years.Ratio Decidendi:
No mandamus could be issued to force a particular age of discharge on the state government when its policy was not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality.Final Decision:
The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders dated 29.06.2021 and 10.03.2021, and dismissing the writ petitions filed by respective respondents. However, it was clarified that any payment/benefit hitherto received by respondents shall not be withdrawn.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate, (AC) Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Sai Shashank, Advocate, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Amit Gautam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate and Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Ritin Rai, Sr. Advocate, (AC) Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Sai Shashank, Advocate, Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Amit Gautam, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Prashant Rawat, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Anand, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate and Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. State asserts policy autonomy and lack of binding Central mandates — Respondents argue for adherence to Central guidelines based on funding and inter-state parity. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. The State is the primary authority for determining service conditions of honorary workers; financial funding from the Center does not mandate adherence to non-statutory guidelines. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a State Government to alter its policy unless the policy is shown to be illegal or irrational. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court orders set aside and writ petitions dismissed — previous payments not to be recovered. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can a writ of mandamus be issued to force a State Government to change its service policy?
No, a mandamus cannot be issued to compel the State to alter its policy unless the policy is shown to be illegal or irrational, particularly when the policy aligns with other state employees. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Does receiving significant funding from the Central Government for a scheme obligate a State to follow Central guidelines on service conditions?
No, the proportion of financial contribution from the Central Government is not decisive in determining whether a State must abide by non-statutory guidelines regarding service conditions. (Para 10 )
8. Who is the primary authority to decide the service conditions and retirement age of honorary workers under the ICDS scheme?
The State Government is the primary authority to decide the service conditions, including the age of discharge, for honorary workers when statutory norms do not provide a uniform limit. (Para 10 )
ORDER
C.A. @ SLP(C)Nos.23437-23440 of 2022
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by the State of Tripura are directed against the common judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Tripura in four connected intra-court appeals led by WA No. 173 of 2021 whereby, Division Bench has affirmed the judgment and order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in a batch of respective writ petitions led by WP(C) No. 886 of 2019.
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2021, the learned Single Judge held that the Anganwadi Workers / Anganwadi Helpers ('AWs'/'AHs') engaged by the appellant-State under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme ('ICDS') were entitled to be continued in their engagement until attaining the age of 65 years against the existing policy of the appellant-State of discharging them upon attaining the age of 60 years. The Division Bench of the High Court endorsed the views of the Single Judge and in that context, also observed that 90% of the expenditure was being covered by the Central Government funding and therefore, whether a person retired at the age of 60 years or the age of 65 years, there was hardly any fundamental change in the expenditure burden of the State Government. The Division Bench also observed that upon an employee retiring at the age of 60 years, there would be an earlier need for replacement whereas, if the same person is continued until the age of 65 years, the requirement of engaging a new person would be delayed by that period.
4. The appellant-State would submit that the age of discharge of AWs/AHs in the State was 58 years in the beginning of ICDS scheme and was increased to 60 years in the year 2012 to bring uniformity with the State Government and Public Sector Undertakings employees. It is also submitted that in fact, the post of AW serves as feeder post for promotion as Supervisor ICDS, which is a regular Group-C post in the State and has superannuation age of 60 years.
5. The High Court has, however, relied on communication dated 22.10.2012 from the Ministry of Women and Child Development wherein, while providing broad framework of implementation of ICDS, it was expected as under:
'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 Government 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 AWS/AWH at the age of 65 years and EPC would ensure its implementation in all the State/UTs.'
6. It is submitted by the State that the above quoted portion was not of any decision by the Central Government and only a statement was made indicating future course of ICDS implementation, making age of discharge as 65 years supported by most of the State Governments. It is contended that such a proposition cannot override the policy of the State Government and no mandamus could have been issued to the appellant-State to revise the age of discharge of AWs/AHs.
7. Taking note of the circumstances of the case, this Court had issued notice but there being no representation from the private respondents after service and looking to the communication received by one of the respondents stating financial constraints, this Court requested the learned senior counsel Mr. Ritin Rai, to be assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, to assist this Court. Mr. Ritin Rai assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Sinha attempted his best to support the order impugned while stating that as per the data available of the number of workers, even if the retirement age is extended to 65 years, the total financial implication on the appellant-State would be only about Rs. 23.7 Crore. I
