Anganwadi Centers Fall Within Ambit Of “Establishment” Under Gratuity Act: Tripura High Court

Background Facts

The Petitioners were engaged as Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWH) under the Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme) at different Anganwadi centres on different dates. The Petitioners retired on different dates between 2021 and 2023. In July 2023, the Petitioners filed representations to the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Government of Tripura (Respondent) to provide them with gratuity and other retiral benefits but the Respondent by a letter dated 11.08.2023 rejected the payment of gratuity. Thus, the writ petition was filed.

It was contended by the Petitioners that AWW and AWH can claim gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act) on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District Development Officer Dahod and others wherein it has been clearly held that AWW and AWH are entitled to gratuity on their retirement in addition to other post-retirement benefits. Further “Anganwadis” come within the meaning of “establishment” under section 1(3)(b) of the Gratuity Act.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the Maniben case cannot be relied upon as the State of Gujarat had already come up with a composite scheme laying down exhaustive provisions regarding selection process, eligibility criteria, minimum academic qualification, disciplinary action, etc for AWW and AWH and the decision of the court was based on this composite scheme. Further the State of Tripura was not a party to the case and the Maniben judgment was not in rem. It was further contended that Anganwadi Centres would not fall within the ambit of “establishment” under the Gratuity Act.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that an “establishment” under the Gratuity Act should be an establishment within the meaning of any law in force in a state which is related to shops or establishments.

The court further observed that Anganwadi Centres are a creation of ICDS Scheme. Each Anganwadi Centre is managed by one AWW and one AWH at the grass root level to implement the integrated ICDS Scheme. Pre-school education is one of the most important activity of Anganwadi Centres and thus Section 11 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its corresponding Rules becomes relevant. Under Rule 11(4)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules (Tripura), 2011, pre-school education in imparted in Anganwadi Centres in Tripura.

However, the Maniben case has laid down that by a notification dated 03.04.1997, the Government of India has included “Educational Institutions” within the meaning of “establishments” under the Gratuity Act. Since purely educational activities of pre-school stage are done through AAWs and AWHs in terms of Section 11 of RTE Act in Anganwadi Centres, as per the Maniben judgement, Anganwadi Centres fell within the meaning of “establishment” under the Gratuity Act.

The court further observed that the Supreme Court in the Maniben case held that Anganwadi Centres have been statutorily recognized under the National Food Security Act, 2013 for performing functions of providing nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers and children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years.

The court thus held that Anganwadi Centres are an establishment/wing of the state government through which not only the ICDS scheme is implemented but also duties of providing pre-school education and nutritional support to women and children is also discharged. Thus Anganwadi Centres of Tripura come within the purview of “establishment” under the Gratuity Act.

The court further held that further the argument that an Anganwadi Centre in run by 2 people where as 10 or more people are required for an “establishment” under the Gratuity Act cannot be accepted as all Anganwadi Centres function under the umbrella of Social Welfare and Social Education Department of Govt. of Tripura. There are common orders by the Department to engage many AWHs for several centres. Also, the Supreme Court in the Maniben case held that Anganwadi centres and Mini Anganwadi centres are part of the Anganwadi establishment of the state. Thus, it cannot be held that each Anganwadi Centre is a separate and distinct “establishment”.

With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition.

Case No.- W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023

Case Name- Bina Rani Paul & Ors Vs State of Tripura & Ors

Counsel for Petitioners- Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Nath, Adv. Ms. A. Debbarma, Adv.

Counsel for Respondents- Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr. B. Majumder, Dy. SGI Ms. K. Reang, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order