Anganwadi Workers & Helpers Are Entitled To Payment of Gratuity As Anganwadi Centres Are Establishments under 1972 Act: Supreme Court

Anganwadi Workers & Helpers Are Entitled To Payment of Gratuity As Anganwadi Centres Are Establishments under 1972 Act

Case: Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer Dahod and others

Coram: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka

Case No.: Civil Appeal No(S). 3153 Of 2022

Court Observation: “The 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs(Anganwadi Workers) and AWHs(Anganwadi Helpers)”

“Within a period of three months from today, necessary steps shall be taken by the concerned authorities in the State of Gujarat under the 1972 Act to extend benefits of the said Act to the eligible AWWs and AWHs. We direct that all eligible AWWs and AWHs shall be entitled to simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date specified under sub­section 3A of Section 7 of the 1972 Act”

“In view of the provisions of the 2013 Act and Section 11 of the RTE Act, Anganwadi centres also perform statutory duties. Therefore, even AWWs and AWHs perform statutory duties under the said enactments. The Anganwadi centres have, thus, become an extended arm of the Government in view of the enactment of the 2013 Act and the Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat. The Anganwadi centres have been established to give effect to the obligations of the State defined under Article 47 of the Constitution. It can be safely said that the posts of AWWs and AWHs are statutory posts”.

“For all this, they are being paid very meagre remuneration and paltry benefits under an insurance scheme of the Central Government. It is high time that the Central Government and State Governments take serious note of the plight of AWWs and AWHs who are expected to render such important services to the society”

“It is not the case of the State Government that every Anganwadi centre is a separate entity. Anganwadi centres and Mini Anganwadi centres are a part of the Anganwadi establishment of the State Government. The Anganwadi centres have been employing ten or more AWWs and AWHs in the State. Therefore, I have no manner of doubt that Anganwadi centres are establishments contemplated by clause (b) of sub­section (3) of Section 1 of the 1972 Act”

“Thus, the honorarium paid to AWWs and AWHs will also be covered by the definition of wages. As AWWs and AWHs are employed by the State Government for wages in the establishments to which the 1972 Act applies, the AWWs and AWHs are employees within the meaning of the 1972 Act”.

“In the Anganwadi centres, the activity of running a pre­ school for the children in the age group of 3 to 6 years is being conducted. It is purely an educational activity. The job of teaching is done by AWWs and AWHs. The State Government is running pre­-schools in Anganwadi centres in accordance with Section 11 of the RTE Act”

“For the reasons recorded above, I have no manner of doubt that the 1972 Act will apply to Anganwadi centres and in turn to AWWs and AWHs” “I would like to observe that the time has come when the Central Government/State Governments has to collectively consider as to whether looking to the nature of work and exponential increase in the Anganwadi centers and to ensure quality in the delivery of services and community participation and calling upon Anganwadi workers/helpers to perform multiple tasks ranging from delivery of vital services to the effective convergence of various sectoral services, the existing working conditions of Anganwadi workers/helpers coupled with lack of job security which albeit results in lack of motivation to serve in disadvantaged areas with limited sensitivity towards the delivery of services to such underprivileged groups, still being the backbone of the scheme introduced by ICDS, time has come to find out modalities in providing better service conditions of the voiceless commensurate to the nature of job discharged by them”.

Previous Posts

Section 482 CrPC – There Has To Be Some Factual Supporting Material For FIR Allegations: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings

Affidavits Not Mere Sheets of Paper but Solemn Statements on Oath: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of NOIDA Plot Allotment

Intelligible Differentia: Supreme Court Upholds State Policy To Deny Bonus Marks To NRHM/NHM Employees In Other States

Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Injurious Affection To Property May Stand On A Different Footing From Injurious Affection To Earnings: Supreme Court

Transfer Order Unsustainable If It Is Based On Irrelevant Ground & Not On Any Germane Factor: Supreme Court

Penetrative Sexual Act Between The Thighs Of Victim Held Together Is Rape As Defined U/S 375 IPC: Kerala High Court Download Judgement

Jurisdiction U/S 100 CPC is So Limited That Even Wrong Or Grossly Inexcusable Finding Of Fact Cannot Interfere With Bombay High Court

TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm’s Length Pricing Within 60 Days: Madras High Court

‘Stigmatic’: Gujarat High Court Directs Reinstatement Of Employee Terminated Without Inquiry Following Allegations Of Corruption