Back
2022 Supreme(Tri) 28
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Indrajit Mahanty, CJ., S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.
Mani Rani Deb Dhar - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 277 & 278 of 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Policy Decisions - The determination of retirement age is a prerogative of the State. However, judicial review holds potential to scrutinize arbitrary or discriminatory policy actions. Court emphasized that executive policies could be subject to judicial evaluation under limited circumstances. (Paras 24-26)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were Anganwadi workers challenging the State's retirement age limit of 60 years set by a 2015 memorandum, advocating the enforcement of the Government India’s 2012 guidelines proposing 65 years as the standard retirement age. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
The Court reaffirmed prior decisions allowing Anganwadi workers to continue beyond 60 years of age, reiterating that 90% of funding comes from the central government, not imposing an undue burden on the state. (Paras 26-29)
Issues: Whether the State's retirement policy for Anganwadi workers of 60 years is consistent with central guidelines suggesting 65 years, and if such policy is subject to judicial review. (Paras 19, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The previous decisions supporting the age increase were held valid, stressing that the State's policy must align with national funding structures, and that such age limits failed the test of rationality in this context. (Paras 11-28)
Result: Petitions allowed in accordance with previous court decisions.
Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. SG, Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. GA, for the Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge age limit for anganwadi workers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments concerning authority and policy on retirement age. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. court analysis on judicial review of policy decisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. decision to allow petitions based on earlier judgments. (Para 28) |
| 5. final disposal of petitions. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT
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.
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. v. 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 v. 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. v. 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 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:
'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
M E M O R A N D U M
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
