The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs M.P. Buland Awaz Nari Shakti Aanganwadi Karyakarta/Sahayika Sangathan Bhopal

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma

This intra-Court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand NyayaPeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries calling in question the legality and validity of order dated 03.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5966/2023 whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent-organization was disposed of with directions for restoration of the State Government's share in the honorarium payable to Anganwadi Workers, Anganwadi Helpers and Mini Anganwadi Workers together with consequential arrears and further directions regarding consideration, grant of gratuity benefits in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

At the outset, I.A. No.9008/2026 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is taken up for consideration. The delay is marginal in nature and the explanation furnished cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides. Accordingly, I.A. No.9008/2026 is allowed and delay in filing the writ appeal stands condoned.

The respondent is a registered organisation representing Anganwadi Workers, Anganwadi Helpers and Mini Anganwadi Workers functioning under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. The case of the respondent before learned Single Judge was that the members of the Sangathan discharge duties of immense social importance at the grass-root level and constitutes an integral component of the implementation of welfare measures relating to women and children. It was asserted that prior to issuance of the Government order dated 27.06.2019; the State Government was contributing a substantial portion towards the honorarium payable to the said workers. According to the respondent, though the Central Government enhanced its contribution towards honorarium, the State Government simultaneously reduced its own contribution through the order dated 27.06.2019, thereby effectively depriving the workers of the benefit intended to be conferred by the Central Government. The respondent further contended that the workers were not being extended adequate service and retiral benefits despite rendering long years of service and, therefore, sought directions regarding gratuity and other consequential benefits.

The writ petition also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya v. District Development Officer Dahod and others, Civil Appeal No. 3153/2022, wherein the applicability of the Payment of Gratuity to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers was considered. The respondent challenged the orders dated 27.06.2019 and 08.09.2022 and sought restoration of the State Government's contribution together with consequential benefits. Upon consideration, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition in part and directed restoration of the State Government's contribution, payment of arrears with interest and consideration of gratuity claims in accordance with law.

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellants/State submitted that learned Single Judge erred in issuing directions for payment of arrears together with interest despite there being no specific pleadings warranting such relief. It was argued that the State Govt. had already undertaken corrective measures by issuing subsequent orders enhancing honorarium and introducing a gratuity scheme for Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. The grievance which formed the basis of the writ petition had substantially been redressed by later policy decisions and therefore the issuance of further directions was unwarranted.

It was further contended that learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that the scheme relating to honorarium was governed by policy considerations involving fiscal implications and allocation of financial resources. The appellants also submitted that the direction regarding payment of interest was particularly unsustainable in law inasmuch as neither any statutory provision nor any specific prayer justified such award. Learned counsel for appellants/State placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Makardhwaj Ram v. Jagdish Rai (Dead) Through LRs. and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1112, and submitted that judicial relief must be confined to the issues which legitimately arise from the pleadings and cause of action and equitable principles must be applied in a manner that avoids unintended consequences.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the reduction of the State Government's contribution through the impugned order dated 27.06.2019 was arbitrary and had the effect of neutralizing the benefit intended to be conferred upon Anganwadi Workers and Helpers through enhancement of honorarium by the Central Government. It was further submitted that the members of the respondent-Sangathan constitute a vulnerable class of workers who have been rendering valuable public service for decades and that denial of rightful financial benefits would amount to perpetuation of injustice. Learned counsel submitted that the directions relating to restoration of honorarium and consideration of gratuity are fully justified and are in consonance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya (supra). It was therefore urged that the appeal deserves dismissal and the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves affirmation.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record.

So far as the challenge to the direction relating to restoration of the State Government's contribution is concerned, we find no reason to take a view different from the one adopted by learned Single Judge. Learned Writ Court correctly appreciated the grievance that reduction of the State's contribution had the effect of diluting the benefit intended for the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. The direction issued by learned Single Judge is, therefore, founded upon considerations of fairness and administrative reasonableness and does not call for interference.

Similarly, the direction regarding gratuity cannot be faulted. Learned Single Judge merely directed the authorities to consider gratuity benefits in accordance with the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such a direction neither creates any new right nor travels beyond the framework of the governing rules/law. We are therefore of the opinion that the direction relating to gratuity deserves to be maintained in its entirety.

However, upon careful scrutiny of the order passed by learned Single Judge, we find substance in the contention that the direction regarding payment of interest deserves reconsideration. The award of interest is ordinarily founded either upon a statutory mandate, a contractual stipulation, established equitable principles or a specific adjudication based upon pleadings and evidence. In the facts of the present case, while the direction for restoration of the State Government's contribution and payment of consequential arrears is fully justified, we are of the considered opinion that the further direction requiring payment of interest is not warranted.

Accordingly, the order passed by learned Single Judge deserves modification only to the limited extent that the direction relating to payment of interest shall stand deleted. Save and except the aforesaid modification, the findings, conclusions and directions recorded by the learned Single Judge are affirmed.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 03.02.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5966/2023 (M.P. Buland Awaz Nari Shakti Aanganwadi Karyakarta/Sahayika Sangthan, Bhopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) is affirmed in all respects except to the limited extent that the direction contained relating to payment of interest shall stand deleted and set aside.

No order as to costs.