‘Paltry honorarium not grave liability on state’: Tripura High Court orders full back wages for Anganwadi workers in ‘limbo’

“Paying a paltry honorarium as wage to these petitioners for services they would have rendered had they been continued, cannot be said to be imposing grave financial liability on the state, because the state cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in disengaging their services in an arbitrary manner and then pleading that the petitioners cannot be paid anything after December, 2022,” the Tripura High Court said on April 29.

The order added that once the National Food Security Act, 2013, came into force, AWWs and AWHs have secured statutory recognition under the law. It continued that the state government cannot continue to rely on the terms of their engagement orders and act arbitrarily and disengage them after they have been engaged for more than 15 to 18 years, because this would be patently arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution of India.

Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit noted that the “honorarium” paid to Anganwadi workers is in fact a “wage”.

Background

The petitioners, who had served as AWWs and AWHs since 2007-2019, were stationed at Khakchang Para Bru camp, the Tripura High Court noted. In November 2022, the Bru population was shifted to Khahamthai Para, leading to the closure of the original Anganwadi centres.

Following this relocation, the state stopped paying the workers honorariums from December 2022, effectively leaving their employment in “limbo”, the Tripura High Court was informed. A single judge had previously granted relief by ordering the release of 50 per cent of the monthly honorarium.

Both the state and the workers appealed this decision, with the state arguing that “honorarium is payable only for the period of actual work done” and the workers demanding full restoration of pay and service.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Purusuttam Roy Barman, along with advocates Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Aradhita Debbarma, argued before the Tripura High Court that the single judge’s judgment erred in giving only limited relief to the petitioners and should have directed the state to pay full honorarium and to allow the petitioners to resume their duty as AWHs or AWWs instead of remitting the matter to the state officials.

They contended that mere shifting of Anganwadi centres from Khakchang Para to Khahamthai Para Bru camp cannot be made an excuse for depriving the petitioners of their entitlement to be in the service till they attain the age of superannuation.

‘Can’t disengage on pretext of closure of Anganwadi centres’

• After the enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and the guidelines issued regarding the uniform method of recruitment of AWWs and AWHs, there is no manner of doubt that AWWs and AWHs hold statutory posts and that the centres are part of the Anganwadi establishment of the state government.
• They therefore cannot be termed by the state as ‘contingent employees’ or ‘temporary employees’ without any protection of service, who can be terminated by the state before they attain the age of superannuation, the Tripura High Court held.
• What is paid to them, though called “honorarium”, is in fact a “wage” and it is not open to the state government to treat each Anganwadi centre as a separate and distinct establishment.

• All of them functioning in the state are components under the umbrella Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) ICDS scheme in Tripura, which has now been statutorily recognised under the 2013 Act.
• The state cannot contend that their engagement is centre-wise, the Tripura High Court pointed out.
• The state government itself has framed a scheme providing for superannuation of AWWs and AWHs on attaining 60 years of age.
• In the absence of any misconduct on their part justifying their disengagement, the state cannot simply disengage them on the pretext of closure of the Anganwadi centres where they were working, when they can be re-engaged in a new place, the Tripura High Court said.
• The plea of the state that the principle of “No work, no pay” is attracted is equally not tenable for the reason that it is not the petitioners who voluntarily stopped working, but it was the state which prevented them from working.

Court’s findings

• In the judgment in Maniben’s case, the Supreme Court was considering the question whether the AWWs and AWHs engaged in the state of Gujarat were entitled to ‘gratuity’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act,1972.
• It held that they were entitled to the benefit.
• It relied mainly on the provisions of the National Food Security Act and has taken a view that one of the objectives of the said statute was to improve the nutritional status of women and children, and the said Act intended to bring about a shift in addressing the issue of food security and altered the previous ‘welfare’ approach to a ‘rights-based’ approach.
• The Supreme Court held that these entitlements confer corresponding rights on the said beneficiaries and that the benefits referred to in the said sections are provided through Anganwadi centres as set out in the supplementary nutrition.
• It held that Anganwadi centres perform a pivotal role in discharging the statutory obligation of the state to provide nutritional support to pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children in the age group of six months to six years.
• These AWWs and AWHs constitute the backbone of the Anganwadi centres, and therefore, this onerous responsibility of extending benefits under the National Food Security Act to the beneficiaries is on them.
• The Supreme Court in Maniben’s case had, thus, held that Anganwadi centres and Mini Anganwadi centres are part of the Anganwadi establishment of the state government.