Mayarani Mahisya Das vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents No.1-5 and Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No.6.

The counsel appearing for the parties are in consensus that this case is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 delivered in W.P.(C) No.730 of 2019 titled as Smti. Hiramati Das vs. The State of Tripura and Others.

In this writ petition the fundamental controversy that has been raised is in respect of age of the retirement or discontinuation from the service. According to the petitioner, the retirement or discontinuation after sixty years is contrary to the policy as declared by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India. By taking aid of the said memorandum dated 30.09.2015, the petitioner has made an attempt to show that there is no uniformity in the age of retirement/discontinuation of the service of the Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers.

From the notification dated 07.07.2012 which has been reproduced in the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 it appears that the respondents have fixed the age of retirement or discontinuation for Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers under Education (Social Welfare & Social Education) Department at 60 (sixty) years. Hence, on completion of sixty years of age Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers who are working under the said department are retired or discontinued from their service. But from the RTI disclosure it came to the knowledge of the petitioner and others that the Central Government has recommended the age of retirement/discontinuation at 65(sixty five) years for Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers. For implementation of that policy that it is the State Government which has to take the call as regards fixing the age of retirement or discontinuation. In that context, in the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019 this court had passed the following direction:

"Be that as it may, since the matters falls in the domain executive it would be apposite to leave the matter to be decided by the State Government. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to place the matter for enhancing the maximum age limit for AWW/AWH to the appropriate authority of the government, within a period of 30(thirty) days when a copy of this order shall be furnished to the respondents. It is further explained that since the petitioner is in legitimate expectation of having the benefit of the „maximum‟ age of 65(sixty five) years for discharge from the service, till such decision is taken by the competent authority of the Government, the status quo of the petitioner shall be maintained. However continuance of the status quo would depend on the decision taken by the State Government.

In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above."

Since the counsel are in agreement that there is no differentiable factual aspect in this writ petition and this writ petition is wholly covered by the judgment dated 29.06.2019, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction that within 30(thirty) days from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order, the respondents shall take a call whether the age of retirement/discontinuation would be 65 years or not. Till such decision is taken by the competent authority of the Government, the status quo in respect of the petitioner shall be maintained. However it is made clear that if in view of the judgment and order dated 29.06.2019, any decision has been taken by the competent authority that decision shall also apply in respect of the petitioner. No fresh decision would be required to be taken by the respondents.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.