Anganwadi workers and helpers, despite being designated as honorary staff, perform essential statutory duties and are legally classified as employees entitled to gratuity, as their remuneration constitutes wages and their service centers function as a unified governmental establishment for the purpose of social security legislation.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)

1) W.A.No.83/2024 is filed by the Appellants challenging the judgment dt.. 09.05.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 624/2023.

2) W.A. No.124 of 2024 and W.A. No.131 of 2024 are filed by the Appellants challenging the common judgment dt. 3.7.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 58/2024 and W.P.(C).No.59 of 2024.

3) Since common issues of law arise for consideration, these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment. For sake of brevity the facts in W.A.No.83/2024 are mentioned below.

4) The private respondents in this Writ Appeal are Anganwadi Workers (for short AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (for short AWHs) engaged under Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) at different Anganwadi Centres on different dates. Their engagement was discontinued on different dates between 2021 to 2023,after they had attained the age of retirement of 60 years.

5) All the respondents had given representations in July, 2023 to the Director of Social Welfare and Social Education, Government of Tripura (Appellant No.4) to provide them gratuity and other post retiral benefits, but through the proceeding dt 11.08.2023 he held that they are not entitled to gratuity.

The order dt.11.8.2023 of the Appellant no.4

6) In the said order, the Appellant No.4 stated that the State Government had introduced a Monthly Pension Scheme / One Time Financial Benefit to the AWWs and AWHs after attaining 60 years of age and who had put in continuous minimum 10 years of service in that capacity subject to execution of options for availing of the same; that the monthly pension fixed was Rs.750/- per month for AWWs and Rs.500/- per month for AWHs; and one time financial benefit was of Rs.50,000/- for AWWs and Rs.30,000/- for AWHs.

7) According to him, the request for payment of gratuity has to be considered as per the existing policy only which did not provide for the same, and therefore, they are not entitled to the same.

8) Similar view was taken by him with regard to other private respondents too vide separate identical orders dt.11.8.2023.

The Writ petitions

9) Challenging the same, the above writ petitions were filed for a direction to the appellants to provide the benefit of gratuity and other post retiral benefits on superannuation, i.e. 60 years and for quashing and cancelling the letter dated 11.08.2023 issued by the appellant No.4 rejecting the respondents’ claim for gratuity.

10) Before the learned Single Judge, the respondents/writ petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Vs. District Development Officer, Dahod & Ors¹(2022) 16 SCC 343.( for short ‘the Maniben’ case), and contended that the Supreme Court had held that AWWS and AWHs are entitled to gratuity on their retirement; and that similar view had also been taken by the Rajasthan High Court vide the judgment dt.09.11.2022in Shanta Devi Vs. State & Ors., [SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3283/2017].

11) The respondents contended that an Anganwadi establishment would come within the definition of ‘establishment’ in terms of Section 1(3)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for shor