Honorary service as Anganwadi worker under scheme not qualifying for pension as non-government, non-substantive civil post service in non-pensionable establishment; courts cannot direct policy to count it towards regular service per separation of powers.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Appellant, Madhu Tomar, has come up before this Court assailing the judgment dated 02.12.2016 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1172 of 2012, In re: Madhu Tomar versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another, dismissing the claim in the writ petition for directing the State Authorities to frame a Policy for counting the service rendered as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 towards regular service rendered till superannuation on 29.02.2012 for pension; with the prayer to set-aside the Impugned Judgment and to grant the benefit of pension to the appellant.

FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:

2. Appellant herein being the petitioner, in CWP No 1172 of 2012, filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-

(i). For issuing a writ of Mandamus to the respondents for considering the issue raised in the writ petition in a time bound schedule and to frame a policy w.r.t clubbing long service rendered by Anganwadi Workers with the service on their appointments as Supervisors for the purposes of pension.

(ii). For directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner after counting her service as Anganwadi Worker and by clubbing it with her service as Supervisor for the purpose of grant of pension w.e.f. from her date of superannuation alongwith interest.

2(i). Appellant-petitioner had set up a case before the writ Court that she was a Matriculate and was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Chandni w.e.f. 21.10.1982 and worked as such till 30.08.2005. It is averred that consequent upon the selection process initiated by the State Authorities for the post of Anganwari Supervisor, the petitioner-appellant appeared in written test on 19.01.2003 and was called for Interview on 3.6.2005 and upon due selection, she was appointed as a Supervisor [ICDS] through Limited Direct Recruitment by the Respondents on 30.08.2005 and she joined her regular appointment as Supervisor [ICDS] on 31.08.2005 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 [Annexure P-4]. It is averred that she submitted a representation to the State Authorities on 20.01.2012 [Annexure P-5] stating therein that the petitioner had rendered service as Anganwari Worker for more than 22 years and 10 months and had rendered service as Supervisor [ICDS] for 6 years and 6 months and therefore, entire period may be counted for pension. Petitioner-appellant superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 29.02.2012. It is in this backdrop, petition was filed claiming a direction to the State Authorities to frame a a Policy for counting the service rendered as Anganwari Worker towards regular service as Supervisor [ICDS] and thereafter to grant the pension to the petitioner.

STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WRIT COURT:

2(ii). The Appellants-State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 03.04.2012, of Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

2(iii). Stand of the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit was that the writ petition was not maintainable. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the service rendered by the petitioner-appellant as Anganwari Worker under [Integrated Child Development Services] ICDS Scheme for 22 years and 10 months was in the capacity of an honorary employee under the ICDS Scheme from 21.10.1982 to 30.08.2005 and thereafter the petitioner stood appointed as ICDS Supervisor on regular basis where she served from 31.08.2005 till her superannuation on 29.02.2012 for six y