{"id":60357,"date":"2011-05-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-24T05:25:16","modified_gmt":"2018-06-23T23:55:16","slug":"akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul<\/div>\n
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n\n%                                               Reserved on      : 20.05.2011\n                                                Date of decision : 27.05.2011\n\n\n\n+                              WP (C) No.1158\/1992\n\n\nAKHIL BHARTIYA ANGANWADI\nKAMGAR UNION (REGD.)                                              ...PETITIONER\n\n\n                Through:        Mr.A.K.Bajpai, Mr.B.K.Parsad and Mr.Varun\n                                Parsad, Advocates.\n\n\n                                         Versus\n\n\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           ...RESPONDENTS\n\n\n                Through:        None for R-1.\n\n                                Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan,\n                                Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary and Mr.Aditya Garg,\n                                Advocates for R-2 to R-5.\n\n\nCORAM:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL\nHON\u201fBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA\n\n1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers\n        may be allowed to see the judgment?                             YES\n\n2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                              YES\n\n3.      Whether the judgment should be                                  YES\n        reported in the Digest?\n\n\nSANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
     1. The petitioner, Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union,<\/p>\n
        filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 1 of 24<\/span>
\n         before the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court seeking the status of<\/p>\n
        Government employees for                      anganwadi          workers and<\/p>\n
        anganwadi helpers and praying for pay parity with<\/p>\n
        primary teachers and nurses of establishments or of any<\/p>\n
        local authority in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 for<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150<\/p>\n
        to anganwadi helpers on parity with ayas\/peons with past<\/p>\n
        benefit of service from the date of their appointments. A<\/p>\n
        further prayer made was to merge these categories with<\/p>\n
        seven other categories of the Scheme of Integrated Child<\/p>\n
        Development Service Scheme (\u201ethe said Scheme\u201f for<\/p>\n
        short) stated to have been formulated in pursuance to the<\/p>\n
        National Policy for Children.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The writ petition was, however, transferred to this Court<\/p>\n
        to be treated as petition under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
        Constitution of India in terms of the order of the Supreme<\/p>\n
        Court dated 27.02.1992.\n<\/p>\n
    3. The writ petition was admitted on 14.05.1993 when on<\/p>\n
        the interim application, the statement of the counsel for<\/p>\n
        the then Delhi Administration (now Govt. of NCT of Delhi)<\/p>\n
        was recorded that the services of these categories of<\/p>\n
        persons were not being terminated and that they were<\/p>\n
        being paid enhanced honorarium as per Rules.                                   The<\/p>\n
        interim application was accordingly disposed of. The<\/p>\n
        matter has thereafter had a chequered history on account<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 2 of 24<\/span>
\n         of non prosecution by the petitioner which was dismissed<\/p>\n
        for non prosecution and restored on three different<\/p>\n
        occasions.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The petitioner claims to be a registered trade union under<\/p>\n
        the Trade Union Act, 1926. Insofar as the factual matrix of<\/p>\n
        the case is concerned, it has been set out that the<\/p>\n
        transition from a joint family system to nuclear type<\/p>\n
        family often require both the parents to work and thus<\/p>\n
        additional       support       through        outside       interventions         is<\/p>\n
        required for proper health care, education, nutrition and<\/p>\n
        social well being of children. A number of voluntary<\/p>\n
        organizations played a pioneering role in this effort and<\/p>\n
        projects of child care were included in successive five<\/p>\n
        year plans of social welfare, education and health. This<\/p>\n
        endeavour received a fillip on account of the adoption of<\/p>\n
        the National Policy for Children by the Govt. of NCT of<\/p>\n
        Delhi in August, 1974 and in pursuance thereto, the said<\/p>\n
        scheme was evolved to make a coordinated effort for an<\/p>\n
        integrated programme of delivery of a package of such<\/p>\n
        services. The objectives of the said Scheme are stated to<\/p>\n
        be as under:\n<\/p>\n
                “i) To improve the nutritional and health
\n                status of children in the age group 0-6
\n                years;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ii) To lay the foundation for proper
\n                psychological,   physical    and   social
\n                development of the child.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 3 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 iii) To reduce the incidence of mortality,
\n                morbidity, malnutrition and school drop out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                iv) To achieve effective coordinated policy
\n                and its implementation amongst the various
\n                departments to promote child development
\n                and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                v) To enhance the capability of the mother
\n                to look after the normal health and
\n                nutritional needs of the child through proper
\n                nutrition and health education.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5. It is for achieving the aforesaid objectives that anganwadi<\/p>\n
        workers were established at various places including in<\/p>\n
        the then Union Territory of Delhi. The anganwadis are to<\/p>\n
        be run by anganwadi workers who are village level<\/p>\n
        workers\/ward level workers and in charge for delivery of<\/p>\n
        various services envisaged under the said Scheme. Each<\/p>\n
        anganwadi is to be assisted by a helper who would<\/p>\n
        invariably be a lady belonging to the same village, local<\/p>\n
        community and well versed in cooking and processing the<\/p>\n
        food, cleaning of anganwadi and the utensils used for<\/p>\n
        anganwadi. The payment was being made as honorarium<\/p>\n
        on a monthly basis. The selection of such anganwadi<\/p>\n
        workers is stated to be made by a committee of official<\/p>\n
        and non officials at the project level.                       No educational<\/p>\n
        qualification was provided for anganwadi workers who<\/p>\n
        may be matriculate or non-matriculate though there was<\/p>\n
        a differential in the honorarium.                 The anganwadi workers<\/p>\n
        are stated to be responsible for organizing pre-school<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 4 of 24<\/span>
\n         activities for about 40 children in the age group of 3-5<\/p>\n
        years,     arranging         supplementary           nutritional       food      for<\/p>\n
        children of age group 6 months to 5 years and expectant<\/p>\n
        and     nursing        mothers,        giving      health       and     nutrition<\/p>\n
        education to mothers, making home visits for educating<\/p>\n
        parents, eliciting community support and participation,<\/p>\n
        assisting        the      Primary         Health        Centre         Staff      in<\/p>\n
        implementation of immunization and a host of such other<\/p>\n
        services. The work of an anganwadi is stated to be<\/p>\n
        supervised by mukhyasevikas or supervisors. A training<\/p>\n
        scheme is stated to have been envisaged for such<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers who would carry a kit to use while<\/p>\n
        conducting educational activities. The anganwadi workers<\/p>\n
        are thus stated to be at the frontline of the said Scheme<\/p>\n
        being selected from the community and having a pivotal<\/p>\n
        role due to the close and continuous contact with the<\/p>\n
        community. They are expected to monitor the growth of<\/p>\n
        children and teach mothers how to prevent and cope with<\/p>\n
        common ailments, educate parents, etc. In the said<\/p>\n
        Scheme, various categories of persons are deployed<\/p>\n
        which include Child Development Project Officer (CPDO),<\/p>\n
        supervisors, account-cum store keepers etc, numbering<\/p>\n
        seven      such      categories.        These       seven       categories        of<\/p>\n
        employees including drivers and peons are stated to be in<\/p>\n
        a regular pay scale. It is only the anganwadi workers and<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 5 of 24<\/span>
\n         anganwadi helpers who are given an honorarium.                                 The<\/p>\n
        use of the word \u201ehonorarium\u201f is said to deny them the<\/p>\n
        opportunity of various beneficial legislations even though<\/p>\n
        the duties of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers<\/p>\n
        are     similar      to     primary        teachers        and      nurses        of<\/p>\n
        establishments or of any local authority in a school or a<\/p>\n
        hospital. The said beneficial legislations are stated to<\/p>\n
        include The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and the<\/p>\n
        Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The anganwadi workers and<\/p>\n
        anganwadi helpers are stated to be required to attend to<\/p>\n
        the duties under the said Scheme by reaching at 9 am in<\/p>\n
        the     morning        and      marking        their     presence         in    the<\/p>\n
        attendance register. They perform five hours of duty and<\/p>\n
        are allowed 12 casual leaves in a year. They are entitled<\/p>\n
        to maternity benefits, travelling allowance for attending<\/p>\n
        meetings, visiting places out of their jurisdiction, but are<\/p>\n
        denied the benefits given to the regular staff of the seven<\/p>\n
        categories. The petition is stated to be predicated on a<\/p>\n
        plea of equal pay for equal work and the fact that even<\/p>\n
        the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were<\/p>\n
        being violated. The anganwadi workers are stated to be in<\/p>\n
        the category of highly skilled workers while anganwadi<\/p>\n
        helpers are stated to be in the category of semi-skilled<\/p>\n
        workers.\n<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 6 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
     6. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the Hand Book of<\/p>\n
        Instructions        regarding        Integrated        Child     Development<\/p>\n
        Service Programme. The said Scheme in para 3.1 deals<\/p>\n
        with staff pattern. However, anganwadi workers are set<\/p>\n
        out in para (iv), particulars of which are as under:<\/p>\n
                  ” IV. Anganwadi Worker<\/p>\n
                  3.2.12 The anganwadi worker should be a lady
\n                  (18-44 years) from the local village and
\n                  acceptable in the local community. Special
\n                  care should be taken in her selection so that
\n                  the children of Scheduled Caste and other
\n                  weaker sections of the society are ensured free
\n                  access to Anganwadi. It is suggested that the
\n                  AWWs in the selected project areas may be
\n                  selected by a committee consisting of the
\n                  District Social Welfare Officer, the BDO, the
\n                  CPDO, the Medical Officer of the primary
\n                  health centre, the President of the Taluka
\n                  Panchayat\/Block Advisory Committee, the
\n                  district representative of the State Social
\n                  Welfare Advisory Board and any other non-
\n                  officials which the State Government may
\n                  consider appropriate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. The job responsibilities of various functionaries stated in<\/p>\n
        para 3.3.4 vis-\u00e0-vis anganwadi workers and anganwadi<\/p>\n
        helpers are as under:\n<\/p>\n
                  ” 3.3.4 Anganwadi Worker<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              1. To weigh each child every month, record the
\n                 weight in graph on the growth card, use
\n                 referral   card    for   referring  cases    of
\n                 mothers\/children to the sub-centres\/PHC etc.
\n                 and maintain child cards for children below 6
\n                 years and produce these cards before the
\n                 visiting medical and para-medical personnel.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2. To carry out a quick sample census of all the
\n                 families, especially mothers and children in
\n                 those families in their respective area of work.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 7 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               3. To organize non-formal pre-school activities in
\n                 an anganwadi for about 40 children in the age
\n                 group 3-5 years of age and to help in designing
\n                 and making of toys and play equipment of
\n                 rural character and origin for use in
\n                 anganwadi.\n<\/p>\n
              4. To organize supplementary nutrition feeding
\n                 for children (0-6 years) and expectant and
\n                 nursing mothers by planning the menu based
\n                 on locally available food and local recipes.<\/p>\n
              5. To provide health and nutrition education to
\n                 mothers.\n<\/p>\n
              6. To make home visits for educating parents to
\n                 enable mothers to plan an effective role in the
\n                 child\u201fs growth and development particularly in
\n                 the case of children attending the anganwadis.<\/p>\n
              7. To elicit community support and participation
\n                 in running the programme.\n<\/p>\n
              8. To assist the PHC staff in the implementation
\n                 of health component of the programme viz.
\n                 immunization, health check-up etc.<\/p>\n
              9. To maintain routine files and records.<\/p>\n
              10.    To bring to the notice of the CDPO any
\n                development in the village which requires
\n                further attention, particularly in regard to the
\n                work of the coordinating arrangements of
\n                different departments in the village.\n<\/p>\n
              11.   To maintain liaison with other institutions.
\n                (Mahila Mandals and involve lady school
\n                teachers and girls of the primary\/middle
\n                schools in the village which have relevance to
\n                her functions.)<\/p>\n
                  (MSW No.206\/75-CD dated 1.1.1976 and No.1-
\n                  9\/76 dated 8.11.1976)<\/p>\n
                  3.3.5 Helper to AWW<\/p>\n
                  1. To cook and serve the food to children and
\n                  mothers.\n<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 8 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
               2. To clean the anganwadi premises daily and
\n                 fetching water.\n<\/p>\n
              3. Cleanliness of small children.\n<\/p>\n
              4. To bring small children collecting from the
\n                 village to the anganwadi.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    8.            Para 3.4 provides for honorarium\/stipend which has<\/p>\n
         been raised from time to time and also for anganwadi<\/p>\n
         workers depends on their educational qualifications. The<\/p>\n
         anganwadi          workers          are       entitled        to      travelling<\/p>\n
         allowance\/daily allowance and can continue to be in<\/p>\n
         employment till 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
    9. The writ petition has been opposed by the Govt. of NCT of<\/p>\n
         Delhi.    In    the    counter       affidavit      filed,    a    preliminary<\/p>\n
         objection was raised that the said Scheme was sponsored<\/p>\n
         by the Central Government through Ministry of Human<\/p>\n
         Resource Department and was being implemented by<\/p>\n
         State Governments\/Union Territories. The payment of<\/p>\n
         honorarium for the voluntary efforts put in by the<\/p>\n
         anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers negated the<\/p>\n
         requirement of a regular pay scale and they are thus to<\/p>\n
         be paid only honorarium\/stipend. An important aspect set<\/p>\n
         out is that no rules as applicable to government<\/p>\n
         servants\/daily wage employees are applicable to these<\/p>\n
         categories of persons since they are voluntary part-time<\/p>\n
         workers. Their work is stated to be of community<\/p>\n
         participation in the said Scheme and not as employee and
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 9 of 24<\/span>
\n         thus cannot be equated with nurses or primary teachers<\/p>\n
        in hospitals\/schools. Their names were not sponsored<\/p>\n
        from any employment exchange for employment and<\/p>\n
        their working hours are stated to be four and a half<\/p>\n
        hours, much less than that of a regular employee.                               The<\/p>\n
        work of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers being<\/p>\n
        of voluntary in nature, there is stated to be no compulsion<\/p>\n
        to serve. The honorarium\/stipend is stated to have been<\/p>\n
        revised from time to time for the voluntary part-time<\/p>\n
        work.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         It is in view of the aforesaid factual matrix that when<\/p>\n
        the    matter       was      initially     taken      up     for    hearing       on<\/p>\n
        06.10.2010 it was observed by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
        parties that it may be possible to work out an amicable<\/p>\n
        solution if the Government of NCT of Delhi takes a<\/p>\n
        sympathetic view of the matter to suitably revise the<\/p>\n
        emoluments of anganwadi workers. One possible method<\/p>\n
        considered appropriate was to take the wages of a daily<\/p>\n
        wager and work out the proportion which may be payable<\/p>\n
        to an anganwadi worker dependent on the ratio of the<\/p>\n
        working hours of an anganwadi worker to that of a daily<\/p>\n
        wager and working out the same, the rest period given to<\/p>\n
        the daily wager would be excluded and only the actual<\/p>\n
        working time be taken into consideration. This would be<\/p>\n
        apart from other benefits which are already extended to<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 10 of 24<\/span>
\n         anganwadi workers and may not be available to a daily<\/p>\n
        wager like maternity leave, etc. The counsel for Govt. of<\/p>\n
        NCT of Delhi took some time to obtain instructions. It was<\/p>\n
        noticed that though the said Scheme was of Union of<\/p>\n
        India, part of the funds were made available by Govt. of<\/p>\n
        NCT of Delhi. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi was thus asked to<\/p>\n
        examine the aforesaid issue keeping in mind only the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers in Delhi and<\/p>\n
        as to what further monetary assistance could be provided<\/p>\n
        to them. In the next effective proceedings on 19.11.2010,<\/p>\n
        learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed that<\/p>\n
        the anganwadi workers were being paid a sum of<\/p>\n
        Rs.2,500\/- per month for working four and a half hours<\/p>\n
        while     the     minimum          wages        for    daily     wagers        were<\/p>\n
        Rs.5,400\/- approximately per month for eight hours.<\/p>\n
        Angangwadi workers were entitled to 20 days leave in a<\/p>\n
        year, maternity leave of 180 days for those having less<\/p>\n
        than two surviving children subject to completion of one<\/p>\n
        year service and 45 days paid absence on abortion or<\/p>\n
        miscarriage. These facilities of maternity leave, 20 days<\/p>\n
        leave in a year, were benefits which were not even<\/p>\n
        available to daily wagers. Learned counsel for Govt. of<\/p>\n
        NCT of Delhi expressed an apprehension that the<\/p>\n
        directions of the Court may be construed as if the<\/p>\n
        Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applies. We allayed the<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 11 of 24<\/span>
\n         apprehension because it was only a methodology to work<\/p>\n
        out the calculation. We were also informed that the<\/p>\n
        question of further enhancement of wages of anganwadi<\/p>\n
        workers and anganwadi helpers was being examined by<\/p>\n
        the Govt. of NCT of Delhi since revised wages of an<\/p>\n
        anganwadi worker as on 01.04.2008 were Rs.2,500\/- per<\/p>\n
        month which was slightly less than 50 per cent of the<\/p>\n
        minimum wages being paid to a daily wager, who work<\/p>\n
        for twice the period of time. We expressed hope that even<\/p>\n
        if that be so, a revision of the figure could take place<\/p>\n
        keeping in mind the cost of living between 2008-2010.<\/p>\n
        The anganwadi helpers were, however, being paid only<\/p>\n
        Rs.1,250\/- per month and we expressed hope that a little<\/p>\n
        more magnanimity would be shown by the Govt. of NCT<\/p>\n
        of Delhi keeping in mind that the said Scheme was a<\/p>\n
        welfare scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         In pursuance to the repeated wishes of the Court for<\/p>\n
        the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to examine the matter, the issue<\/p>\n
        was ultimately placed before the Cabinet and we were<\/p>\n
        informed on 01.04.2011 that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi<\/p>\n
        had taken a decision to revise the emoluments of<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers in pursuance to various requests<\/p>\n
        made through our orders. We expressed the hope of a<\/p>\n
        sympathetic view from the Government despite the legal<\/p>\n
        plea sought to be advanced by the respondents that<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 12 of 24<\/span>
\n         there was a judgment against the relief claimed of the<\/p>\n
        Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors.v.<\/p>\n
        Ameerbi and Ors.; (2007) 11 SCC 681. We accepted the<\/p>\n
        aforesaid to resolve the controversy, but surprisingly on<\/p>\n
        01.04.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner stated,<\/p>\n
        despite a favourable decision taken by the Government of<\/p>\n
        NCT of Delhi in March, 2011, that he would have to obtain<\/p>\n
        necessary          instructions.         Learned         counsel         for     the<\/p>\n
        respondents made it clear that if the aforesaid decision<\/p>\n
        was not acceptable to the petitioner and they want to<\/p>\n
        invite a judgment on merits then the respondents may<\/p>\n
        not be interested in implementation of the revised<\/p>\n
        emoluments. A meeting of the petitioner is stated to have<\/p>\n
        been held on 15.04.2011 where it was resolved that the<\/p>\n
        relief should be pressed as set out in the writ petition and<\/p>\n
        that the increase of honorarium from time to time was not<\/p>\n
        the subject matter of the writ petition. This was so despite<\/p>\n
        various proceedings held before the Court where in the<\/p>\n
        presence of learned counsel for the parties, this Court<\/p>\n
        made endeavours to see a better honorarium for the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers.<\/p>\n
    12.         The result is that the petitioner having been the<\/p>\n
        beneficiary of the directions and observations of the<\/p>\n
        Court, now want to go back to their original relief. So be<\/p>\n
        it.\n<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 13 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
     13.         Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before<\/p>\n
        us that the petitioner was being discriminated against as<\/p>\n
        seven different categories of persons deployed under the<\/p>\n
        said Scheme were in the regular pay scale. It was stated<\/p>\n
        that as of now, there were 14 categories of employees<\/p>\n
        and only anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers were<\/p>\n
        being paid honorarium\/stipend. These anganwadi workers<\/p>\n
        and anganwadi helpers are stated to be subjected to<\/p>\n
        appointment and selection with fixed duty hours and have<\/p>\n
        to be given other benefits. The work carried out by the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers is stated to be of skilled nature and<\/p>\n
        they cannot be paid merely honorarium which is stated to<\/p>\n
        have been banned under a notification dated 20.06.1951.<\/p>\n
    14.         This circular was not placed on record, but produced<\/p>\n
        before us during the proceedings. The circular is in the<\/p>\n
        form      of     an     OM      dated        20.06.1951          dealing       with<\/p>\n
        employment of honorary workers in civil posts.                               It has<\/p>\n
        been observed in the OM that the services of an honorary<\/p>\n
        worker should be utilized only in an advisory capacity and<\/p>\n
        not against civil post. Learned counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
        these two category of persons should be entitled to<\/p>\n
        minimum wages and regularization of services as they<\/p>\n
        were appointed as per standards set by the authorities.<\/p>\n
    15.         Learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi has<\/p>\n
        opposed the petition and submits that in deference to the<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 14 of 24<\/span>
\n         observations of this Court that the decision was taken in<\/p>\n
        March, 2011 in terms whereof the honorarium of an<\/p>\n
        anganwadi worker has been enhanced to Rs.4,000\/- per<\/p>\n
        month while the honorarium for an anganwadi helper has<\/p>\n
        been enhanced to Rs.2,000\/- per month. The distribution<\/p>\n
        of the funding is stated to be as under:\n<\/p>\n
        IN CASE OF ANGANWADI WORKERS:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Govt. of India Fund   Delhi Govt. State
\n                                                                          Fund
\n        Present   rate  of Rs.2,500\/-               Rs.1350\/-             Rs.1150\/-
\n        honorarium
\n        Enhanced rate of Rs.1,500\/-                 Rs.1350\/-             Rs.150\/-
\n        honorarium
\n        Total amount of Rs.4,000\/-                  Rs.2,700\/-            Rs.1,300\/-\n<\/p>\n
        honorarium     per\n        month          per\n        anganwadi worker\n        after enhancement\n        IN CASE OF ANGANWADI HELPERS :-\n                                                    Govt. of India Fund   Delhi Govt. State\n                                                                          Fund\n        Present   rate  of    Rs.1,250\/-            Rs.675\/-              Rs.575\/-\n        honorarium\n        Enhanced rate of      Rs.750\/-              Rs.675\/-              Rs.75\/-\n        honorarium\n        Total amount of       Rs.2,000\/-            Rs.1,350\/-            Rs.650\/-\n        honorarium     per\n        month          per\n        anganwadi helper\n        after enhancement\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    16.         We may notice at this stage that the judgment<\/p>\n
        relied upon by the respondents in State of Karnataka and<\/p>\n
        Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.\u201fs case (supra) deals with<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers appointed under the said Scheme and<\/p>\n
        the maintainability of an application filed by the workers<\/p>\n
        under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,<\/p>\n
        1985. It was held in the said case that the post of such<\/p>\n
        workers was not a statutory post and their recruitment<\/p>\n
        process was not governed by the Constitution or any<\/p>\n
        statute and thus the application was not maintainable. It
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 15 of 24<\/span>
\n         was specifically held that ICDS Programme would neither<\/p>\n
        constitute        an      “industry”         nor      anganwadi           workers<\/p>\n
        “industrial workmen”. The post of anganwadi workers was<\/p>\n
        not a statutory post and had been created in terms of the<\/p>\n
        said Scheme, but it was one thing to say that there<\/p>\n
        existed a relationship of employer and employee by and<\/p>\n
        between the State and anganwadi workers, but it was<\/p>\n
        another thing to say that they were holders of a civil post.<\/p>\n
        This was so observed while simultaneously noticing that<\/p>\n
        the Court was not oblivious of the fact that their presence<\/p>\n
        in their respective villages is extremely important and<\/p>\n
        they make significant contribution to the society. It would<\/p>\n
        be useful to reproduce some of the observations made by<\/p>\n
        the Supreme Court in para nos.29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,<\/p>\n
        37 & 39, which are as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “29. However, rules framed under proviso to Article
\n               309 of the Constitution of India are not attracted in
\n               the case of the respondents. They are appointed
\n               under a scheme which is not of a permanent nature,
\n               although might have continued for a long time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               30. Appointments made under a scheme and
\n               recruitment process being carried out through a
\n               committee, in our opinion, would not render the
\n               incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our
\n               attention has not been drawn to any rule or
\n               regulation governing the mode of their recruitment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Some statements in this behalf have been made by
\n               the interveners but for the reasons stated
\n               hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A
\n               distinction must be made about a post created by
\n               the Central Government or the State Governments in
\n               exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of
\n               the Constitution of India or under a statute vis-\u00e0-vis
\n               cases of this nature which are sui generis. Terms and
\n               conditions of services of an employee may be
\n               referable to Acts of appropriate legislature. The
\n               matter may also come within the purview of Article
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 16 of 24<\/span>
\n                309 of the Constitution of India as proviso appended
\n               thereto confers power upon the President or the
\n               Governor of a State or other authority, who may be
\n               delegated with such power, to make rules during the
\n               interregnum.\n<\/p>\n
               32. One of the questions which was raised before us
\n               was in regard to the right of an anganwadi worker to
\n               contest an election. They are indisputably free to do
\n               so. A holder of a civil post may not be entitled
\n               thereto.\n<\/p>\n
               33. In Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla
\n               Pradeep Kumar Dev<\/a>; AIR 1992 SC 1959, this Court
\n               while considering the provisions of Article 191(1)(a)
\n               of the Constitution of India in relation to the posts
\n               held by the employees of an Integrated Tribal
\n               Development Agency opined that their employees
\n               would not be holder of an office of profit although
\n               the State exercises control thereover holding: (SCC
\n               pp. 427-28, para 28)<\/p>\n
                      “28. It is also necessary to bear in mind that
\n                      the Government is undertaking several
\n                      projects and activities including commercial
\n                      activities through the corporations and local
\n                      bodies exercising some control over such
\n                      corporations or bodies. In that view of the
\n                      matter they may come within the meaning of
\n                      the \u201eState\u201f envisaged in Article 12 but that
\n                      may not be a decisive factor in deciding the
\n                      issue. As a matter of fact, Section 10 of the
\n                      Representation of the People Act as well as
\n                      Article 58(2) of the Constitution of India do
\n                      indicate that all persons employed in such
\n                      undertakings, corporations or local bodies
\n                      cannot be deemed to suffer disqualification
\n                      for contesting the elections except to the
\n                      extent indicated therein. This aspect also has
\n                      been      considered    in   some     of   the
\n                      abovementioned decisions. If a strict and
\n                      narrow construction is to be applied that
\n                      amounts to shutting off many prominent and
\n                      other eligible persons to contest the
\n                      elections which forms the fundamental basis
\n                      for the democratic set-up.      Therefore
\n                      several factors as indicated above depending
\n                      upon the facts of each case have to be taken
\n                      into consideration in deciding whether a
\n                      particular person is disqualified by virtue of
\n                      his holding an office of profit before
\n                      concluding that such an office is under the
\n                      Government.”\n<\/p>\n
               34. The decision, therefore, is an authority for the
\n               proposition that those employees who come within
\n               the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 17 of 24<\/span>
\n                are not necessarily government servants. A fortiori
\n               the State in terms of a scheme may exercise control
\n               over a section of the persons working but thereby
\n               only, they do not become entitled to protection
\n               under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
               35. Reference to the provisions of the Minimum
\n               Wages Act, in our opinion, is also not apposite. The
\n               said Act is applicable to the workmen working in the
\n               industries specified therein. It is not the case of the
\n               respondents that the ICDS Programme would
\n               constitute an “industry” or anganwadi workers are
\n               industrial workmen. There cannot be any doubt
\n               whatsoever that it is one thing to say that the State
\n               would be liable to pay minimum wages irrespective
\n               of its financial constraints but it is another thing to
\n               say that as to whether such a claim can be raised in
\n               respect of those who are working under a project. It
\n               is not a case where the concept of minimum wage,
\n               living wage or fair wage can be brought in service.<\/p>\n
               36. Different tests applied even for determining the
\n               relationship of employer and employee have recently
\n               been noticed by this Court in District Rehabilitation
\n               Officer v. Jay Kishore Maity<\/a>; 2006 (11) SCALE 545.
\n               In that case, in almost similar project, the employees
\n               appointed by the District Rehabilitation Centre
\n               claimed themselves to be the Central Government
\n               employees. Each case, therefore, has to be
\n               considered on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
               37. This Court cannot determine a lis only on
\n               sympathy.\n<\/p>\n
               39. It is also not a case where the doctrine of parity
\n               of employment can be invoked. It is true that
\n               nomenclature of a term of payment is not decisive
\n               but the substance is as was held in Jaya Bachchan v.
\n               Union of India & Ors.<\/a>; (2006) 5 SCC 266, but the
\n               question has to be determined having regard to the
\n               issue involved. We are concerned herein with only
\n               one question viz. whether the respondents are
\n               holders of any civil post. We are, having regard to
\n               the materials on record, of the view that they are
\n               not.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    17.         Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought<\/p>\n
        to distinguish the judgment by submitting that in para 39,<\/p>\n
        the Supreme Court, which had noticed that they were<\/p>\n
        concerned only with one question i.e. whether the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers were holders of any civil post,
\n_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 18 of 24<\/span>
\n         decided only that issue that the Tribunal had no<\/p>\n
        jurisdiction to entertain the application.<\/p>\n
    18.         On an analysis of the rival submissions of the<\/p>\n
        learned counsel for the parties, it is obvious to us that the<\/p>\n
        judgment in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and<\/p>\n
        Ors.\u201fs case (supra) squarely applies to the case to<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers under the said<\/p>\n
        Scheme. It is the deployment of these two categories<\/p>\n
        under the said Scheme which has given rise to the claims<\/p>\n
        made       in    the     present       petition      as    also     before       the<\/p>\n
        Administrative Tribunal against which the judgment was<\/p>\n
        rendered by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
    19.         We have quoted the observations of the Supreme<\/p>\n
        Court at some length only to emphasize that the very<\/p>\n
        controversy sought to be raised in the present petition is<\/p>\n
        the one which was dealt with by the Supreme Court albeit<\/p>\n
        in   respect        of    determining          the     issue      whether        the<\/p>\n
        application filed by the anganwadi workers before the<\/p>\n
        Administrative Tribunal could be maintained. In fact, in<\/p>\n
        the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before us,<\/p>\n
        the real defence is that there was no civil post for which<\/p>\n
        recruitment took place in accordance with rules qua<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers who were<\/p>\n
        part-time         workers\/helpers             and         were      thus       paid<\/p>\n
        honorarium\/stipend. The Supreme Court has held that the<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 19 of 24<\/span>
\n         anganwadi workers are not holding any statutory post<\/p>\n
        though a relationship of an employer and employee<\/p>\n
        exists. There are no recruitment rules applicable nor is<\/p>\n
        the State required to comply with the constitutional<\/p>\n
        scheme of equity as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16<\/p>\n
        of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for<\/p>\n
        purposes of appointment within the constitutional scheme<\/p>\n
        existed. The appointment process of these workers was<\/p>\n
        held in para 30 not to render incumbents thereof as<\/p>\n
        holders of civil post. In this behalf, an example given is of<\/p>\n
        the entitlement of an anganwadi worker to contest an<\/p>\n
        election which an holder of a civil post may not be<\/p>\n
        entitled      to.    The      Supreme          Court      relied      upon       the<\/p>\n
        observations in Satrucharla                      Chandrasekhar Raju v.<\/p>\n
        Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev<\/a>; (1992) 4 SCC 404 to<\/p>\n
        observe that the employees who come within the<\/p>\n
        meaning of Article 12 to the Constitution of India are not<\/p>\n
        necessarily government servants. Even the reference to<\/p>\n
        the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been<\/p>\n
        held not apposite as the same applies to workmen<\/p>\n
        working in the industries specified therein. The said<\/p>\n
        Scheme would not constitute an “industry” nor the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers as “industrial workmen”.                              Thus, we<\/p>\n
        have not the slightest of doubt that the judgment in State<\/p>\n
        of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.\u201fs case (supra)<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 20 of 24<\/span>
\n         would squarely apply to the facts of the present case, dis-<\/p>\n
        entitling the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers<\/p>\n
        to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
    20.         We may notice at this stage that in Secretary, State<\/p>\n
        of Karnataka and Ors.v. Umadevi & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC<\/p>\n
        1806, it has been held that it would not be just and<\/p>\n
        proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article<\/p>\n
        226 of the Constitution of India to permit the persons<\/p>\n
        engaged to be regularized, based on the long period of<\/p>\n
        their service or engagement as it would be perpetuating<\/p>\n
        illegality. Even in matters of regularization of service, it<\/p>\n
        has been observed that the Court must be careful to<\/p>\n
        ensure that they do not interfere unduly with the<\/p>\n
        economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or lend<\/p>\n
        themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of<\/p>\n
        the constitutional and statutory mandate.                           That was a<\/p>\n
        case where the respondents before the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
        claimed regularization of service and equal salary and<\/p>\n
        other allowances as being paid to other employees on a<\/p>\n
        regular basis. It was held that unless the appointment<\/p>\n
        was in terms of the relevant rules, the same could not<\/p>\n
        confer any right on the appointees.\n<\/p>\n
    21.         We      cannot       lose     sight      of    the     fact     that     the<\/p>\n
        employment           of    anganwadi          workers        and      anganwadi<\/p>\n
        helpers is in terms of the said Scheme. Their terms and<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 21 of 24<\/span>
\n         conditions are to be governed by the said Scheme.                               The<\/p>\n
        Government of India in its wisdom has created different<\/p>\n
        categories of employees under the said Scheme. The<\/p>\n
        employees, who are to work regularly, are put in a regular<\/p>\n
        scale, but anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are<\/p>\n
        required to give part-time assistance. No doubt, on being<\/p>\n
        deployed, the basic training has to be provided to them,<\/p>\n
        but that itself would not confer any right to get a civil<\/p>\n
        post. Not only that, a person can be employed without<\/p>\n
        appropriate          educational           qualification         and       initially<\/p>\n
        honorarium used to vary based on such educational<\/p>\n
        qualification. The working hours are also different even<\/p>\n
        from a daily wager. Thus, the modes of providing<\/p>\n
        honorarium\/stipend              to    the     anganwadi          workers        and<\/p>\n
        anganwadi helpers cannot be faulted.\n<\/p>\n
    22.         We, in no manner, want to discount the great<\/p>\n
        assistance provided by such anganwadi workers and<\/p>\n
        anganwadi helpers to the system. No doubt, they are<\/p>\n
        crucial     to     the    system        providing        the     ground        level<\/p>\n
        interaction. The moot point, however, remains that<\/p>\n
        neither was any civil post created for their benefit nor are<\/p>\n
        they recruited through any recruitment rules to give them<\/p>\n
        the constitutional protection which is available to persons<\/p>\n
        recruited through such a process.\n<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 22 of 24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
     23.         It is also not in dispute that benefits have been<\/p>\n
        extended to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers<\/p>\n
        which are not even available to daily wagers like<\/p>\n
        maternity leave, 20 days leave in a year, etc.<\/p>\n
    24.         We also find some merit in the plea of the learned<\/p>\n
        counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner<\/p>\n
        wanted assistance of this Court to ensure that the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers get better<\/p>\n
        remuneration with which this Court was in agreement,<\/p>\n
        having availed of that benefit, now seek to wriggle out of<\/p>\n
        the basic reason why these observations were made by<\/p>\n
        this Court i.e. the impediment of legal direction which can<\/p>\n
        be issued by this Court on account of the judgment in<\/p>\n
        State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.\u201fs case<\/p>\n
        (supra). It was on the humanitarian grounds that we felt<\/p>\n
        that the matter must be looked at sympathetically by the<\/p>\n
        Government itself which has translated into some relief<\/p>\n
        for the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers as<\/p>\n
        their emoluments do stand revised from March, 2011. We<\/p>\n
        are also conscious of the plea raised by the learned<\/p>\n
        counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 01.04.2011 that if<\/p>\n
        this decision of revision of honorarium was not acceptable<\/p>\n
        to the petitioner and they want to invite a judgment on<\/p>\n
        merits, the respondents may not be interested                                      in<\/p>\n
        implementation of the revised emoluments. Learned<\/p>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 23 of 24<\/span>
\n         counsel for the petitioner was, however, emphatic that<\/p>\n
        they still want to invite a judgment in view of the<\/p>\n
        collective decision taken by the petitioner-union.<\/p>\n
    25.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, no relief as<\/p>\n
        claimed for by the petitioner can be granted to the<\/p>\n
        anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers and the writ<\/p>\n
        petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to<\/p>\n
        bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
MAY 27, 2011                                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.\ndm\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
\nWP (C)No.1158\/1992                                                               Page 24 of 24<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 20.05.2011 Date of decision : 27.05.2011 + WP (C) No.1158\/1992 AKHIL BHARTIYA ANGANWADI KAMGAR UNION (REGD.) …PETITIONER Through: Mr.A.K.Bajpai, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAkhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5429,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011"},"wordCount":5429,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011","name":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-23T23:55:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akhil-bhartiya-anganwadi-kamgar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar … vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60357","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}