The Supreme Court has recently quashed the Tripura High Court order directing the state to raise the minimum retirement age for Anganwadi workers from 60 to 65 years.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that under existing statutory norms, it is the State government that has the authority to decide service conditions, including retirement age of Anganwadi workers.
“Looking to the very nature of the work and the structure of services, when the State Government is the primary authority to decide the said service conditions of these honorary workers, no mandamus could have been issued so as to thrust a particular age of discharge,” the order reads.
It also made strong criticism of the High Court’s decision to order the State to change its policy.
“The stretch of consideration by the Division Bench that by enhancing the age of retirement, the requirement of substitute is delayed remains bereft of logic and in any case, that does not provide a legal ground to force the State Government to alter its policy … do not provide any basis for issuance of a mandamus to the State Government to change its policy, particularly when the policy is otherwise not shown to be suffering from any illegality or irrationality,” the bench remarked.
The High Court reasoned that because the Central Government funds 90% of the Integrated Child Development Scheme, under which such workers are employed, the move would have little financial impact on the State.
It had discovered that delaying retirement age would postpone the need for replacements.
The State government filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, and while issuing notice on the appeal, the top court appointed Senior Advocate Ritin Rai as amicus curiae to assist it because no one appeared to represent the party respondents, who were originally the petitioners before the High Court.
The amicus argued that even if the retirement age were raised to 65, the state would only have to spend an additional Rs 23.7 Crore. He added that parity in employment is a reasonable expectation, and when similarly situated Anganwadi Workers enjoy a retiral age of 65 years in a number of States across the country, similarly situated Anganwadi Workers in Tripura cannot be denied reasonable expectations.
However, Advocate Rai arguments were rejected by the Supreme Court, which noted that there was no statutory provision for a uniform retirement age.
As a result, the appeal was granted, and the High Court’s order was reversed.
It was clarified, however, that payments already made to workers who benefited from the High Court’s order are not to be refunded, nor are they to be removed from service.
