Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 Is Applicable To Anganwadi Workers And Helpers: Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs).
The Court held thus in a writ petition preferred by AWWs and AWHs who were engaged under Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) at different Anganwadi centres on different dates.
A Single Bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha observed, “In view of the above said discussions, it is held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the AWWs and AWHs working in the State of Tripura and the respondent Nos.1-11 are directed to make the payment of gratuity to the petitioners as per their eligibility in terms of provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 along with interest @ 7% per annum computing for the period after 30 days from the respective date of their retirement till the payment is made.”
Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman appeared on behalf of the petitioners while Government Advocate Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, the engagement of the petitioners (AWWs and AWHs) was discontinued on their retirement on different dates during the period from 2021 to 2023 after they attained the age of 60 years. Engagement of some of them was continued by way of re-engagement even after they had attained the age of 60 years and later on same was discontinued. All of them sent their respective representations to the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Government of Tripura (respondent) to provide them gratuity and other post retiral benefits but the respondent regretted the matter of gratuity.
Earlier, the State Government introduced a scheme for pension/one time Financial Benefits to the AWWs and AWHs on their retirement on attaining 60 years of age. However, as their representations were rejected, they filed a writ petition before the High Court, claiming some reliefs.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “In State of Maharashtra (supra) as relied on by learned GA, there was one society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely Water and Land Management Institute (WALMI) which would be administered by its Governing Council and said Council framed WALMI Establishment Rules, 1980 providing service conditions including the allowances to be paid to its employees. On some occasions, the Director General of WALMI sent proposal to the State Government for granting pensionary benefits and contributory provident fund to the employees of WALMI and every time said proposal was turned down by the State Government. Thereafter, some employees of WALMI filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court claiming pensionary benefits at par with the State Government’s employees and the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to extend the pensionary benefits to the employees of WALMI with further observations that the amount available with WALMI and deposited with E.P.F. towards the employee's contribution itself were sufficient to meet the financial liability of the pensionary benefits to the employees and therefore, there was no reasonable basis for the State Government to refuse the benefit of pension to the retired employees of WALMI. In that perspective, the Apex Court observed that the employees of the autonomous bodies could not claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits at par with the State Government employees.”
The Court said that merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there might be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution was funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies could not as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees.
The Court added that it was also observed by the Apex Court that the court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implication and that whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court should not interfere lightly.
The Court further emphasised that the decision in the said case was rendered by the Supreme Court completely in different perspective and in the case in hand, when the statute itself, by way of its logical interpretation, covers the cases of AWWs and AWHs, granting of any relief to them under the provision of Act of 1972 will not tantamount to interfere with any policy decision of the Government.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned memorandum of the respondent to an extent.
Cause Title- Bina Rani Paul & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman, Advocates K. Nath, and A. Debbarma.
Respondents: GA Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, SGI B. Majumder, and Advocate K. Reang.
