Case Title: Smt. Bina Rani Paul & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023
Dated on: 9th May, 2024
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Facts:
The prima facie of the case involves a group of petitioners comprising Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) from various locations in Tripura. These workers were engaged under the Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS) at different Anganwadi centers. Upon reaching the age of 60, their engagements were discontinued, and they sought gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The petitioners submitted representations to the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Tripura, but their claims were rejected, citing an existing scheme that provided monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead of gratuity. In response, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits, as well as to quash the memorandum rejecting their claims. Their counsel argued that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cited a SC decision and a Rajasthan HC decision supporting their entitlement to gratuity.
The state respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the SC’s decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, and there was no specific scheme in place for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. However, the U.O.I represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, supported the state’s position, emphasizing that the policy decisions regarding benefits for employees should be left to expert bodies and could have financial implications.
Issues framed by the Court:
- Whether Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura are entitled to gratuity and other post-retirement benefits upon reaching the age of 60, despite the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead?
- Whether the definition of ‘establishment’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, encompasses Anganwadi centres in Tripura, thus making AWWs and AWHs eligible for gratuity under the Act?
- Whether the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioners, which supported their entitlement to gratuity, is applicable to the state of Tripura, considering it was specific to the State of Gujarat?
- Whether the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura precludes the court from mandating such benefits, especially considering potential financial implications and policy decisions?
Contentions of the Appellant:
The contentions of the appellant, primarily revolve around asserting the entitlement of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura to receive gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The appellant argues that the petitioners, upon reaching the age of 60, should receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District Development Officer Dahod and others. This decision established the entitlement of AWWs and AWHs to gratuity upon retirement. The appellant contends that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act, thus making the workers eligible for gratuity. Furthermore, the appellant challenges the rejection of the petitioners’ claims for gratuity and other benefits, arguing that the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits does not preclude their entitlement to gratuity. Thus, the appellant seeks a writ mandating the provision of gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents, argued that the SC decision cited by the petitioners, which supports their entitlement to gratuity, was specific to Gujarat and may not apply to Tripura. Furthermore, they contend that Anganwadi centres in Tripura may not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, which is necessary for the workers to be eligible for gratuity benefits. They also point out that there is currently no specific scheme in place in Tripura for providing gratuity to Anganwadi workers upon retirement. Additionally, the respondents argue that the decision to provide certain benefits, including gratuity, should be left to expert bodies and policymakers, as implementing such benefits could have financial implications for the government. Moreover, they highlighted the importance of considering potential financial consequences and policy decisions before mandating additional benefits for employees.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
In its analysis and judgment, the court examined the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners contended that Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a Supreme Court decision and a Rajasthan High Court decision supporting their claim. They argued that Anganwadi establishments fell under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act. The respondents, however, opposed this claim, arguing that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act. Additionally, they emphasized the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. After considering the arguments, the court analysed the provisions of the Gratuity Act and relevant case law. It noted that while the SC decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to Gujarat, the principles laid down therein could be applicable to other states, including Tripura. The court also observed that the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura did not preclude their entitlement to gratuity under the Act. Eventually, the court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that AWWs and AWHs in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, upon reaching the age of 60. The court directed the respondents to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
