This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging an order terminating the services of Anganwadi workers upon attaining superannuation age. The court held that policy decisions on superannuation are not arbitrary and dismissed the prayer for unpaid honorarium as unsupported by the record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 396 of 2021
Petitioner :- Urmila Devi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Prasad Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioners herein seek for quashing of the orders dated 22.09.2020 and 05.09.2020 whereby their services as Anganwadi Karykarti have been brought to an end in view of the Government Order dated 04.09.2012. The petitioners also seek for quashing of the Government Order dated 04.09.2012 which provides that after attaining age of 62 years, the honorarium appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti would come to an end.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the previous Government Order dated 16.12.2003 provided for an opportunity of hearing before dispensation of services of an Anganwadi Karyakarti after attaining age of 60 years after assessment of her capability and work efficiency. The said provision has been dispensed with while issuing the Government Order dated 04.09.2012 without any reason. He further submits that the payment of honorarium for certain period of work done by the petitioners has not been made.
As far as the challenge to the Government Order dated 04.09.2012 is concerned, it is noteworthy that the said government order provides for dispensation of services of an Anganwadi Karyakarti automatically on attaining age of 62 years, which is the age of superannuation for most of the Government employees in the State of UP. The State being employer has taken a policy decision which cannot be assailed on the ground that the change of policy was irrational. The challenge to the policy decision of the State cannot be entertained in a causal manner. It is settled law that policy decisions of the State are not to be disturbed unless they are found to be grossly arbitrary or irrational. In the case of Federation of Railway Officers Association & ors. vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 289 , the Apex Court has held as under:
"12. In examining a question of this nature where a policy is evolved by
the Government judicial review thereof is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise the Court would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters."
As far as the orders dated 22.09.2020 and 05.09.2020 are concerned, it is evident that the petitioners cannot continue beyond the age of 62 years in view of the categorical provisions in the Government Order dated 04.09.2012, which pertains to the selection and appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti under the program run by the State Government.
As far as the payment of honorarium for the alleged period of working of the petitioners is concerned, no foundation has been laid in the writ petition. The oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners to issue direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for payment of honorarium, therefore, cannot be accepted.
However, it is kept open for the petitioners to ventilate their grievances by moving proper applications before the appropriate Authority.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 18.1.2021 P Kesari
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a challenge to the Government Order dispensing services at superannuation age is maintainable.
Whether the High Court can entertain an oral prayer for payment of unpaid honorarium in a writ petition.
Whether state policy decisions regarding superannuation age of government employees are subject to judicial review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Federation of Railway Officers Association & ors. vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶9
2003 (4) SCC 289 · Who else cites this
Urmila Devi And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
