Tripura High Court: S. Datta Purkayastha, J., held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) was applicable to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers working in the State of Tripura. The Court quashed the impugned memorandum dated 11-08-2023 of Respondent 4, the Director, Social Welfare & Social Education Department, Government of Tripura, whereby, gratuity was denied to petitioners and thus directed Respondents 1 to 11 to make the payment of gratuity to petitioners as per their eligibility in terms of the provisions of the Act.
Background
Petitioners were anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers engaged under the Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (‘the ICDS scheme’) at different anganwadi centres. Their engagement was discontinued on their retirement during the period from 2021 to 2023 after they attained the age of 60 years and engagement of some petitioners was continued by way of re-engagement even after they had attained the age of 60 years and later, the same was also discontinued.
All petitioners thereafter in July 2023 sent their respective representations to Respondent 4, to provide them gratuity and other post retiral benefits but Respondent 4 vide letter dated 11-08-2023 regretted the matter of gratuity. Earlier, the State Government vide notification dated 01-08-2015 introduced a scheme for pension/one-time financial benefits to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers on their retirement on attaining the age of 60 years. Thus, after rejection of the representations of petitioners, they filed the present writ petition to direct respondents to provide the benefit of gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 60 years.
Counsel for petitioners relied on Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 507 (‘Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Case’), wherein the Supreme Court held that anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers were entitled to gratuity on their retirement in addition to other post-retirement benefits. Whereas respondents contended that the State of Tripura was not a party in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Case, and the said judgment was not passed in rem and was also not circulated to the State of Tripura for compliance and therefore, ratio of the said case could not be applied in a case relating to Tripura.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issue for consideration was “whether the provision of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’) was applicable to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers as employed or engaged in the State of Tripura in view of the decision in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Case (supra)?”.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Case (supra) gave wider interpretation to the words ‘establishment’, ‘employer’, ‘employee’, and ‘wages’ as envisaged in the Act and concluded that the Act would be applicable to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers. The Court noted that the anganwadi centres were the creation of the ICDS Scheme, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme launched in 1975 keeping in view the need to holistically address the issues of health, nutrition, and education needs of children and each anganwadi centre was managed by one anganwadi worker and one anganwadi helper at the grass root level to implement the integrated ICDS Scheme.
The Court observed that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules (Tripura), 2011 (‘2011 Rules’) was framed by the State of Tripura but no separate provision was made therein for arrangement of such pre-school education by any institution or wing of the Government other than the anganwadi centres. Moreover, Rule 11(4)(c) of the 2011 Rules indicated that such pre-school education was imparted in anganwadi centres in Tripura.
The Court noted that in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya Case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that by a notification dated 03-04-1997, the Government of India included educational institutions as ‘establishments’ under Section 1(3)(c) of the Act and in anganwadi centres, purely educational activities of pre-school stage were done through anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers in terms of Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE Act’). Thus, now the anganwadi centres equally fall within the category of ‘establishment’ in terms of Section 1(3)(c) of the Act.
The Court opined that an anganwadi centre was an establishment or wing of the State Government through which not only the ICDS scheme was implemented, but the duties of providing pre-school education under Section 11 of the RTE Act, and the statutory obligations of providing nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, children of age group of 6 months to 6 years and of prevention of child malnutrition were also discharged under the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013. Thus, the Court opined that the anganwadi centres in Tripura also come within the purview of ‘establishment’ in terms of Sections 1(3)(b) and 1(3)(c) of the Act.
The Court noted that a Notification No.F.46(175)-ICDS/SWE/2014/9341(100) dated 01-08-2015 was issued by the State Government for providing monthly pension/one-time financial benefit on the retirement/death of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers, thereby, treating them as a single class or group.
Thus, the Court held that the Act was applicable to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers working in the State of Tripura. The Court quashed the impugned memorandum dated 11-08-2023 of the Director, Social Welfare & Social Education Department, Government of Tripura and directed Respondents 1 to11 to make the payment of gratuity to petitioners as per their eligibility in terms of the provisions of the Act along with the interest at 7% p.a.
[Bina Rani Paul v. State of Tripura, 2024 SCC OnLine Tri 425, decided on 09-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice S. Datta Purkayastha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: P. Roy Barman, Senior Advocate; K. Nath, A. Debbarma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA; B. Majumder, Dy. SGI; K. Reang, Advocate.
