Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Adarsh Gujarat Anganwadi Union on 20 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 04/08/2025
Pronounced On : 20/08/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 363 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3525 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 363 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3525 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 364 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16150 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 364 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16150 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 365 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2104 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 365 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2104 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 366 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16149 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 366 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16149 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 367 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 367 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 367 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 368 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2049 of 2024
With
Page 1 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 368 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2049 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 369 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8165 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 369 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8165 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 370 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16148 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 370 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16148 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 371 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8167 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 371 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8167 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 376 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16105 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 376 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16105 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 386 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3525 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 386 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3525 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 387 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16150 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 387 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16150 of 2016
With
Page 2 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 388 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2104 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 388 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2104 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 389 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2049 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 389 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2049 of 2024
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 390 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 390 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8164 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8166 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8166 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 509 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16104 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 509 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16104 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 510 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16104 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 510 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16104 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 511 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15832 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 511 of 2025
Page 3 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15832 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 512 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16148 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 512 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16148 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 513 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16105 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 513 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16105 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 514 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15773 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 514 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15773 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 515 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15773 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 515 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15773 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 516 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15831 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 516 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15831 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 517 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8165 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 517 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8165 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 518 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16149 of 2016
With
Page 4 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 518 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16149 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 519 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8166 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 519 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8166 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 520 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8167 of 2015
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 520 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8167 of 2015
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 521 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15831 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 521 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15831 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 522 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15832 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 522 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15832 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
ADARSH GUJARAT ANGANWADI UNION & ORS.
==========================================================
Page 5 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Appearance:
In LPA Nos.508, 509, 514, 521, 522, 363-371, 376 of 2025
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR VINAY B. VISHEN, AGP AND MS NIRALI SARDA AGP
for the Appellant(s) No.1,2,3MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MS ADITI RAOL(8128) for Respondent(s) No.MR VIKRAMJIT BANERJEE, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
WITH MR KARTIK DEY AND MS VYOMA K JHAVERI for the Respondent(s)In CA No.1 of 2025 in LPA No.367 of 2025
MR GAUTAM JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Applicant(s)In LPA Nos.510-513,515-520,386-90 of 2025
MR VIKRAMJIT BANERJEE, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
WITH MR KARTIK DEY AND MS VYOMA K JHAVERI for Appellant(s) No.1MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH
MR VINAY B. VISHEN, AGP AND MS NIRALI SARDA AGP for Appellant No.MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MS ADITI RAOL for Respondent(s)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANICOMMON CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present group of Letters Patent Appeals
emanates from the judgment and order dated
02.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge,
wherein and whereby the learned Single Judge has
declared that the Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and
Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) shall be treated at par
with the regularly selected permanent employees
holding civil posts in the State or Central
Government, and further directions are issued toPage 6 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
the Central Government and the State Government
to formulate a policy for absorption of the posts
of AWWs and AWHs in the Government service and
confer consequential benefit of regularization to
them.
BRIEF FACTS
2. In the captioned writ petitions, the
respondent – AWWs and AWHs, have prayed for
regularization of their service and to declare
the honoraioum paid to them is violative of
Articles 14, 16, 21, and 23 of the Constitution
of India, 1950. A direction is also sought to pay
the minimum wages, which is being paid to other
part-time employers engaged in other departments
of the State of Gujarat.
3. Learned Single Judge has primarily considered
two judgments of the Apex Court for granting
relief sought for by the respondent i.e. the
original petitioners : the first judgment is in
the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. Ameerbi
& Ors., (2007) 11 S.C.C. 681, and another in the
case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District
Development Officer, Dahod & Ors., (2022) 16
S.C.C. 343. After considering the aforesaid
judgments, the learned Single Judge has
considered the facets of Integrated Child
Development Services Scheme (ICDS Scheme), the
functions and onerous duties of both, the AWWs
Page 7 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
and the AWHs threadbare, and has allowed the writ
petitions.
4. Following issues were framed by the learned
Single Judge, which are as under:
Issue No.1 : Whether AWWs and AWHs are employed
on statutory posts.
Learned Single Judge has held that the posts
held by the AWWs and AWHs can be said to be
statutory posts.
Issue No.2 : Whether the AWWs and AWHs are
entitled to claim regularization.
Learned Single Judge has also held the same
in favour of the AWWs and AWHs.
Issue No.3 : Issue on the principle of equal pay
for equal work.
Learned Single Judge has issued directions to
the respondent State to pay salary at the minimum
of pay-scale of Class-III post, and whereas the
AWHs shall be paid salary in the minimum of pay-
scale of Class-IV post employees.
Issue No.4 : Whether the services rendered by the
respondents are honorary and voluntary services.
Page 8 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
By holding that the AWWs and AWHs cannot be
treated equally to those of persons employed on
civil posts and cannot be discriminated in the
matter of payment of emoluments, and hence, the
services rendered by them honorarily or
voluntarily cannot be discriminated, and the
conduct of the State Government and the Central
Government is held to be discriminative in
violation of the fundamental rights of equality
and equality in the matter of employment.
Issue No.5 : It is with regard to the judicial
powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, to issue directions
to regularize the service of employees.
Issue No.6 : Another issue addressed by the
learned Single Judge is whether the posts on
which the present respondents – AWWs and AWHs are
appointed can be said to be sanctioned posts or
not.
By considering the recruitment process of the
said AWWs and AWHs, the learned Single Judge,
after considering their mode of appointment, has
held that all the AWWs and AWHs are appointed on
the sanctioned posts.
5. The learned Single Judge, while answering the
issue of discrimination, has held that there is
possible gender discrimination by the State
Page 9 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Government and Central Government, as the scheme
is designed to take an advantage of the
completely unequal bargaining power to an
unemployed lady, more so when she is from a rural
background. While referring to the provisions of
Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950,
it is held by the learned Single Judge that the
AWWs and AWHs are discriminated in the matters of
employment on the basis of their sex (gender).
6. Being aggrieved, the Central Government and
State Government Departments have assailed the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT-UNION OF
INDIA
7. Learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, Mr.Vikramjit Banerjee, while placing
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Ameerbi (supra), has submitted that the
ratio of the said judgment is not diluted by the
Apex Court in the subsequent judgment of Maniben
Maganbhai Bhariya (supra) (for short “Maniben”).
He has submitted that in the judgment of Ameerbi
(supra), the Apex Court, after examination of
ICDS Scheme has emphatically held that the posts
of AWWs and AWHs cannot be treated as civil
posts, and this observation of the Apex Court is
neither altered nor diluted in the subsequent
judgment of Maniben (supra). While referring to
Page 10 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Paragraphs Nos. 93 and 94, of Ameerbi (supra),
it is contended that the Apex Court has not
touched upon the issue of civil posts, and hence,
it is urged that the learned Single Judge has
committed an error in issuing the directions to
the Central Government to treat the posts of AWWs
and AWHs as civil posts, and confer the benefit
of regularization.
8. Learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, while referring to the affidavit filed on
18.07.2025, has pointed out that the Central
Government has introduced the ICDS Scheme across
the country for inviting community-based services
from honorary workers, who are to be paid an
honorarium. It is submitted that the Government
of India, time and again, has enhanced the
honorarium of AWWs and AWHs from Rs.3,000/- to
Rs.4,000/- per month, and the State Governments
are paying emoluments over and above what is paid
by the Central Government, and from 1975 till
2018, the amount has been gradually increased
every year, and from 2018, the AWWs are paid an
amount of Rs.4,500/- by the Central Government,
whereas AWHs are paid an amount of Rs.3,500/-. He
has also referred to the other benefits of
promotion, additional benefits, such as State
insurance benefits under the Pradhan Mantri
Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana (PMJJBY), which are also
being extended to the AWWs and AWHs. While
Page 11 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
referring to the budget of the Financial Year
2024-25, the benefit of Rs.5,000/- under the
healthcare benefit of Ayushman Bharat Pradhan
Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY) to all AWWs
and AWHs has been extended. It is submitted that
approximately 13.17 lakh AWWs and AWHs have been
engaged across the country, and the directions of
regularization will invite huge financial burden.
9. By referring to the National Health Mission,
it is contended that if the directions of the
learned Single Judge are sustained, the same
would have huge financial repercussions on all
the schemes formulated by the Central government.
It is urged that the learned Single Judge has
erred in treating the posts of AWWs and AWHs as
civil posts in a scheme formulated in cohesion
with the State Government, where the expenses are
also shared by the Central Government and the
State Government. It is submitted that the
creation of posts, as directed by the learned
Single Judge, is not viable, and a civil post
cannot be created in any project or a scheme, as
the same cannot be said to be a regular
recruitment process undertaken under the
statutory rules at par with the other regularly
employed Central Government or State Government
employees. While referring to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors.
vs. A.S. Pillai & Ors., (2010) 13 S.C.C. 448, it
Page 12 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
is contended that the respondents cannot be
ordered to be regularized in service merely
because they are engaged for a considerable
period. It is urged that the appeals may be
allowed by setting aside the common judgement and
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE GOVERNMENT
10. Learned Advocate General, Mr.Kamal Trivedi,
appearing for the State Government Department,
has submitted that the learned Single Judge, on
four counts, has issued the following directions:
“a. Holding the posts of AWWs and AWHs as statutory
posts.
b. They are to be treated as sanctioned posts.
c. They are discriminated among the regularized
employees working in civil posts in the State
Government.
d. They are entitled to the minimum pay scale as
available to Class III posts by invoking the
principle of equal pay for equal work.”
11. While reiterating the submissions advanced by
the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate
General, has submitted that the learned Single
Judge has misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Maniben (supra) by treating
the posts of AWWs and AWHs as civil posts. He has
also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Ameerbi (supra) and has
Page 13 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
reiterated that the said decision is not diluted
by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in
the case of Maniben (supra). He has submitted
that the posts held by the AWWs and AWHs are
created under the provisions of the Government
Resolutions in particular Anganwadi Centers and
hence, they cannot be said to be holding
sanctioned posts, as the Anganwadi Centers are
prone to be closed as and when the objective has
been achieved. In this regard, he has referred to
Clause – 15.7 of the Government Resolution dated
25.11.2019.
12. Learned Advocate General has referred to the
Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009, which
prescribes the standard rules for the appointment
of AWWs and AWHs. It is submitted that the posts
on which they are appointed cannot be equated
with Class-III posts, and if it is done so, there
are approximately 3 lakh Class-III and Class-IV
employees in the State of Gujarat, and in case
the directions issued by the learned Single Judge
are accepted, these AWWs and AWHs would be 1 lakh
and odd in number, which is a substantial figure
for treating them as Class-III and Class-IV
employees. It is submitted that there cannot be
any comparison of any post held by a Government
employee in a Government Department to that of
AWWs and AWHs working in Anganwadi Centers.
Page 14 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
13. Learned Advocate General has also referred to
the Government Resolution dated 29.09.2022,
fixing the honorarium of AWWs and AWHs and has
submitted that the same is made in the ratio of
60:40, the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which is paid
to the AWWs comprises Rs.7,300/- from the State
Government, whereas Rs.2,700/- from the Central
Government and in the case of AWHs, the amount of
Rs.5,500/- comprises Rs.1,350/- from the Central
Government and Rs.4,150/- from the State
Government.
14. It is submitted by learned Advocate General
that there cannot be a comparison of AWWs and
AWHs with regularly selected employees in the
Government as Class-III and Class-IV employees,
as they are governed by the Recruitment Rules of
the concerned Department. It is contended that
the learned Single Judge has erred in considering
that the AWWs are further appointed to the post
of Mukhya Sevika, which is a Class-III post,
after nomination from the AWWs. The educational
qualifications of both Mukhya Sevika and Class-
III employees and the AWWs are entirely
different. It is submitted that those appointed
from AWWs under the Recruitment Rules under the
Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1998, to hold a Bachelor’s Degree or a Master’s
Degree in Home Science or Social Work, whereas
AWWs have the requirement of possessing 12th or
Page 15 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
10th Standard pass plus an AICTE minimum 02 years
Diploma Course, and in case of non-availability
of candidates with the aforesaid qualification
for three times, then the fourth time, 10 th
Standard pass candidate can be accepted. Further,
it is submitted that passing of a competitive
examination is prescribed for Class-III posts,
whereas no entrance examination is prescribed for
appointing the AWWs and AWHs. The total working
hours for Class-III employees is almost 08 hours
and 40 minutes, whereas AWWs and AWHs have to
work only for 06 hours.
15. It is contended by the learned Advocate
General that there cannot be any comparison of
AWWs to Mukhya Sevika or Supervisor or various
employees working in Class-III posts of the State
Government and thus, the common judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge requires
to be interfered with. It is submitted that the
minimum pay-scale applicable to Class-III and
Class-IV employees cannot be extended to AWWs and
AWHs, as both posts cannot be compared in any
manner. So far as Class-IV posts are concerned,
they are engaged by adopting the outsourcing
policy of 2006, and such posts cannot be compared
to Mukhya Sevika, and the learned Single Judge
has erred in extending the minimum pay- scale of
Class-IV employees to AWHs and extending the
minimum pay-scale is not feasible.
Page 16 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
16. Learned Advocate General has submitted that
at present 53,065 AWWs and 53,062 AWHs are
engaged for honorary services pursuant to the
scheme launched by the Government of India on
01.10.1975, and right from the beginning, they
are being paid an honorarium. It is submitted
that, as of today, the total honorarium paid to
the AWWs is approximately Rs.636.74 crores,
introduced vide Government Resolution dated
29.09.2022, and an amount of Rs.350.04 crores is
paid to AWHs. After the introduction of the
Government Resolution dated 29.09.2022, it is
submitted that in addition to the aforesaid
amount Rs.145.8 crores is being paid to them. It
is submitted that the learned Single Judge, by
issuing the aforesaid directions, imposes a
financial burden of Rs.109 crores per month and
Rs.1,308 crores annually in the case of AWHs and
Rs.114 crores per month, and Rs.1,368 crores
annually in the case of AWWs. It is submitted
that there would be a burden of Rs.2,676 crores
on the State Exchequer under the ICDS Scheme,
which is utilized for the nutrition of pregnant
mothers, lactating women, and adolescent girls
and the State’s financial burden would have a
dragging effect on the sustainability of the
schemes.
17. It is submitted by the learned Advocate
General that the learned Single Judge has
Page 17 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
primarily placed reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Maniben (supra) and the
learned Single Judge, while upholding the
observations from the said judgment, which
pertains to the National Food Security Act, 2013
(for short “the 2013 Act”) and the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (for short “the RTE”) has held that the AWWs
and AWHs can be conferred the status of
Government employees. It is submitted that the
reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on
the 2013 Act is misplaced and it does not
automatically extend the status of Government
employees to AWWs and AWHs.
18. By placing reliance on the judgment of the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. vs.
Umadevi & Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 1, it is
submitted that the Apex Court has held that the
State is also controlled by economic
considerations and financial implications of any
public employment. The viability of the
department or the instrumentality or of the
project is also of equal concern for the State,
and hence, a financial burden cannot be imposed
upon the State necessitating a permanency in
employment.
Page 18 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
19. It is submitted by the learned Advocate
General that the learned Single Judge has
recorded in the judgment that the regularization
sought by the respondent original petitioners in
the instant case is not construed as the prayer
for regularization in its normal form. However,
simultaneously, it is held that AWWs and AWHs are
entitled to the benefit of regularization since
they are functioning as any other regularly
appointed permanent employee of the State
Government. Reliance is also placed on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation &
Anr. vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmachari
Sanghatana, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 556 (for short
“Casteribe”), for the proposition of law that the
creation of posts is not within the domain of
judicial function, and such function pertains to
the executive, and the status of permanency
cannot be granted by the Court where no such
posts exist.
20. Finally, it is contended by the learned
Advocate General that the learned Single Judge
has, in fact, issued directions to pay arrears of
03 years prior to filing of the writ petition,
which is also uncalled for. It is urged that the
common judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.
Page 19 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT -AWWs
and AWHs
21. In response to the aforesaid submissions,
learned Senior Advocate, Mr.Shalin Mehta,
appearing for the AWWs and AWHs, has submitted
that the common judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge may not be interfered with,
as the same is precisely passed. He has referred
to the observations made by the learned Single
Judge, while pointing out the appointment order
of one of the respondents and submitted that the
said AWW was appointed on 23.05.1991 pursuant to
the advertisement issued by the Child Development
Project Officer. It is submitted that the
appointment of the respondents cannot be said to
be either a backdoor, illegal, or irregular
entry. He has submitted that all the appointments
are made pursuant to the Government Resolution
issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, and hence, it cannot be said that
the respondents do not hold a civil post. It is
urged that the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge in this regard may not be interfered
with, as the same is precisely passed, after
considering the judgment of Maniben (supra).
22. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr.Mehta, has
referred to the ICDS Scheme and the various
objectives of the schemes referred to therein. It
is submitted that the Apex Court has already
Page 20 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
considered the laudable objectives of the ICDS
scheme and the nature of the duties and
engagement of AWWs and AWHs. He has submitted
that the learned Single Judge has precisely
reported the objective of the scheme and the
sensitive nature of the duties undertaken by AWWs
and AWHs, which have a direct impact on children
below 6 years, pregnant and lactating mothers,
and their health, etc. It is submitted that the
Apex Court, after considering the manner of
recruitment undertaken in the State of Gujarat,
has held in the case of Maniben (supra) that the
AWWs and AWHs cannot be considered as honorary
workers, but are to be treated as employees
holding statutory posts, and can be said to be
full-time employees engaged in full-time
employment.
23. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr.Mehta, has
further invited the attention of this Court to
the observations of the Apex Court in the case of
Maniben (supra) and has submitted that, after the
aforesaid judgment, it is not open for the
Central Government or the State Government to
address the AWWs and AWHs as honorary workers,
and their status of honorary is not determinative
of the posts, for which they are appointed. It is
submitted that the fundamental rights cannot be
curtailed on the pretext of financial
implications, which has been canvassed by the
Page 21 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Learned Additional Solicitor General of India and
Learned Advocate General appearing for the
Central Government and State Government,
respectively.
24. It is contended that the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Ameerbi (supra) has been
diluted by the Apex Court subsequently in the
decision rendered in the case of Maniben (supra).
It is contended by the respondents that they have
rendered more than 10 to 20 years of service, and
even after the judgment of the Constitution Bench
of the Apex Court in the case of Maniben (supra),
as a one-time measure, the respondents are
required to be regularized in service.
25. By placing reliance on the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Jaggo vs. Union of
India and Ors., 2024 INSC 1034 dated 20.12.2024
passed in S.L.P. (C) No.5580 of 2024, it is
submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta
that the nomenclature of sanctioned and non-
sanctioned posts, daily wager, honorarium, etc.,
cannot be invoked to deny the benefit of
regularization to all the employees like the
respondents, who have been rendering their duties
for more than a decade and, in some cases, for
more than 20 years.
Page 22 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
26. It is contended that the posts, on which AWWs
and AWHs are appointed, after undergoing
recruitment process, are sanctioned posts, hence
the learned Single Judge has issued precise
directions to treat them at par with permanently
employed Class-III and Class-IV employees. While
referring to the directions of the learned Single
Judge, it is contended no directions are issued
to treating the posts of AWWs and AWHs as Class-
III and Class-IV posts, but the directions are
only issued to the State Government and Central
Government to undertake the necessary exercise
and to fix the pay scales at par with Class-III
or Class-IV employees. It is submitted that the
reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Casteribe (supra) is misconceived,
as the learned Single Judge has neither directed
the Central Government nor the State Government
to create Class-III or Class-IV posts
accommodating AWHs and AWWs. Similarly, it is
submitted that the reliance placed on the case of
A.S.Pillai (supra) is also misconceived and would
not apply to the facts of the present case so as
to dilute the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge.
27. Finally, it is submitted by learned Senior
Advocate Mr.Mehta that the respondents at least
deserve minimum wages, which are being extended
to Class-IV employees by the State Government,
Page 23 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
and by not paying so, the State Government is
running away from its constitutional obligation
by discriminating the respondents from those
employees, despite having rendered several years
of service duly. It is urged that the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge directing the
respondent State to pay the minimum wages to the
respondents during the intervening period till
the policy is framed by the Central Government
and State Government for absorption of AWHs and
AWWs be upheld.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
28. The entire case of the respective parties and
the directions issued by the learned Single Judge
hinges on two judgements of the Apex Court in the
cases of – (i) Ameerbi (supra); and (ii) Maniben
(supra). The common factual and legal nucleus is
enveloped in these two judgements.
29. Learned Single Judge, in the common impugned
judgement and order dated 02.08.2024 passed in
the captioned writ petition, primarily by placing
reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Maniben (supra), has issued the
directions as under:
“6. The Directions :
62. Considering the discussion, observations and
conclusion and the answers to the questions
formulated, the following directions are issued.
Page 24 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
(i) The AWWs and AWHs are declared to be entitled to
be treated at par with regularly selected permanent
employees holding civil posts in the State or Central
Government and whereas the Central Government and the
State Government shall jointly formulate a policy for
absorption of the posts AWWs and AWHs in Government
service and to confer consequential benefit of
regularization to the incumbents on the posts in
question.
(ii) The Central Government and the State Government
while formulating an appropriate policy shall ensure
that the following aspects are appropriately
addressed :
(a) The Classes (for the present purpose, as per
the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and
Recruitment) (General) Rules, 1967) in which posts
the post AWWs and AWHs would be absorbed.
(b) The pay scale/pay band/ pay grade which would
be available to the post of AWWs/AWHs.
(c) The cut off date from which the incumbents on
the post AWWs and AWHs would be entitled to
arrears. It is clarified that in case of the
petitioners, the cut off date shall not be less
than a period of three years preceding the date of
filing of the petitions.
(d) Any other ancillary related issue which may be
deemed appropriate.
(iii) Insofar as the petitioners such incumbents on
the post of AWWs shall be paid salary in the minimum
of pay scale as available to Class-III post and
whereas the petitioners on the post of AWHs shall be
paid salary in the minimum of pay scale as available
to Class-IV post
(iv) The Central Government and the State Government
shall complete the exercise of formulating the policy
as above, within a period of 06 months from the date
of uploading of this judgment on the portal of the
Gujarat High Court, till the time appropriate
decisions are taken, the petitioners would be
entitled to salary in the minimum of pay scale as
declared above.”
Page 25 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
30. We may, first deal with the first direction
of declaring the AWWs and AWHs to be treated at
par with regularly selected permanent employees
holding civil posts either in Central Government
or State Government.
31. While issuing such directions, the learned
Single Judge has also directed the appellants to
address the aspects of (a), (b), (c) and (d) as
mentioned hereinabove. The genesis of the
aforesaid directions lies in the judgement of the
Apex Court in the case of Maniben (supra).
32. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to the decisions of Ameerbi (supra), wherein the
Apex Court, while examining the issue of
jurisdiction of the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which addresses
the dispute raised by the AWWs and AWHs, has held
that they do not hold the civil post. The Apex
Court in the said case has held thus:
“Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any
function of the State. They do not hold post under a
statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment
rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the
State are not applicable in their case. The State is
not required to comply with the constitutional scheme
of equality as adumbrated under Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. No process of selection
for the purpose of their appointment within the
constitutional scheme existed. We do not think that
the said decision has any application in the instant
case.”
Page 26 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
33. The appellants have vehemently stressed upon
the foregoing observations made by the Apex Court
in the case of Maniben (supra), and it is
contended that the directions in the case of
Ammeerbi (supra) declaring that the AWWs do not
hold a civil post is still a good law.
34. In the case of Maniben (supra), which stems
out the dispute from the State of Gujarat, after
examining the decision in the case of Ameerbi
(supra) has held that the AWWs and AWHs are
entitled to gratuity under the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is pertinent to
note that the issue there in has been examined in
light of the provisions of the National Food
Security Act, 2013, (in short “2013, Act”), and
the State Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019.
In paragraph No.3.8 (speaking through Hon’ble
Mr.Justice Abhay A. Oka), in case the of Maniben
(supra)it is held as under:
“3.8. This Court in state of Karnatak v. Ameerbi held
that AWWs and AWHs are not the employees of Anganwadi
centres or the ICDS scheme. In the said case, the
dispute was confined to an issue of whether AWWs can
be said to be holding civil posts to attract the
jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Administrative
Tribunal established under Section 15 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Hence, the said
decision is not relevant in this case.”
“16.1. Now, coming to the State of Gujarat, the
Government Resolution dated 25-11-2019 (Annexure A-1
of IA No. 161608 of 2021) lays down exhaustivePage 27 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
provisions regarding selection criteria, duties,
disciplinary action, rules, etc. in respect of AWWs
and AWHs. In fact, by the said Resolution, the State
Government has framed the Anganwadi Worker/Helper
(Selection Criteria, Honorary Service, Review and
Discipline) Rules (for short “the said Rules”).
Duties of AWWs and AWHs have been laid down in
Appendix 1 to the Government Resolution.
XXXXXXXX“The decision in the case of Ameerbi
22. In Ameerbi, this Court dealt with the issue
whether AWWs and AWHs were holding civil posts. The
issue was whether the original applications filed by
AWWs before the State Tribunal established under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 were maintain-
able. This Court held that the posts of AWWs were
not statutory posts and the same have been created
in terms of ICDS. Therefore, there was no relation-
ship of employer and employee between the State Gov-
ernment and AWWs. It was held that the AWWs do not
carry on any function of the State. It was observed
that no Recruitment Rules have been framed for ap-
pointing AWWs. Much water has flown after the deci-
sion in Ameerbi was rendered in the year 2007. When
the said decision was rendered by this Court, the
2013 Act was not on the statute book. As noted ear-
lier, the Anganwadi centres established under ICDS
have been given statutory status under the 2013 Act.
Moreover, under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 2013 Act,
the Anganwadi centres perform statutory duties under
the 2013 Act. I have already referred to the Govern-
ment Resolution of the Government of Gujarat dated
25-11-2019 in extenso.
23. The Resolution incorporates the said Rules which
lay down selection criteria, educational qualifica-
tions, the process of selection, etc. of AWWs and
AWHs. Under the said Rules, a detailed process of
making appointments of AWWs and AWHs has been incor-
porated. It also incorporates the marking system for
the selection of AWWs and AWHs. The said Rules pro-
vide that the AWWs and AWHs will continue in the
service till the age of 58 years. Even the minimum
and maximum age of the candidates for participatingPage 28 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
in the process of recruitment has been laid down.
There are provisions made for the termination of
services of AWWs and AWHs. Though the said Rules re-
fer to their service as honorary service, the use of
the word “honorary” is not determinative of the sta-
tus of AWWs and AWHs.
24. 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 enact-
ments. The Anganwadi centres have, thus, become an
extended arm of the Government in view of the enact-
ment 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 Consti-
tution. It can be safely said that the posts of AWWs
and AWHs are statutory posts.
25. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the
appointments of AWWs and AWHs are governed by the
said Rules. In view of the 2013 Act, AWWs and AWHs
are no longer a part of any temporary scheme of
ICDS. It cannot be said that the employment of AWWs
and AWHs has temporary status. In view of the
changes brought about by the 2013 Act and the afore-
said Rules framed by the Government of Gujarat, the
law laid down by this Court in Ameerbi will not de-
tain this Court any further from deciding the issue.
For the reasons stated above, the decision in
Ameerbi will not have any bearing on the issue in-
volved in these appeals.”
35. The Apex Court has considered the Government
Resolution dated 25.11.2019, which lays down
exhaustive provisions regarding the selection
criteria, duties, disciplinary action, rules etc.
in respect of the AWWs and AWHs.
36. A careful reading of paragraph Nos.22 to 24
(authored by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Abhay S Oka) will
Page 29 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
exposit that it is recorded that “Much water has
flown after the decision in Ameerbi was rendered
in the year 2007. When the said decision was
rendered by this Court, the 2013 Act was not on
the statute book.” It is held that “in view of
the provisions of 2013 Act and Section 11 of the
RTE Act Aanganwadi centers also perform statutory
duties. Therefore, even AWWs and AWHs perform
statutory duties under the said enactment.”
Ultimately, it is concluded that “It can be
safely said that posts of AWWs and AWHs are
statutory posts.”. Thus, while distinguishing
the judgement of Ameerbi (supra), in light of
2013, Act, it is held that they hold the
‘statutory post’.
37. In juxtaposition to the aforesaid
observations, in paragraph No.83, (speaking
through Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi), it is
recorded thus:
“83. If we look towards the problems plaguing the
Anganwadi workers/helpers, the first and foremost,
they are not holders of civil posts due to which
they are deprived of a regular salary and other
benefits that are available to employees of the
State. Instead of a salary, they get only a so
called paltry ‘honorarium’ (much lower than the
minimum wages) on the specious ground that they are
part-time voluntary workers, working only for about
4 hours a day.”
91…………However, what is being paid to Anganwadi
workers/helpers with a nomenclature used by the
respondents in projecting the term ‘honorarium’, is
Page 30 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
in fact the ‘wages’ that has been paid for the
services rendered at the end of the month. It is the
form of emoluments which is being earned on
discharge of duty in accordance with the terms of
employment defined under Section 2(s) of the Act
1972.
92. So far as the judgment in Ameerbi (supra) on
which the Division Bench of the High Court has
placed reliance is concerned, it was a case where
the question raised for consideration was as to
whether those who are appointed as Anganwadi
workers/helpers are holders of civil posts and are
entitled to seek protection of Article 311 of the
Constitution. In that context, it was held by this
Court that they are not holders of civil posts and
protection of Article 311 of the Constitution is not
available and that was the reason for which the
application which was filed at the behest of
Anganwadi workers/helpers under Section 15 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 was held to be not
maintainable.
93. In the instant cases, the question which has
been raised for consideration is limited to the
extent as to whether those who are working as
Anganwadi workers/helpers are eligible to claim
gratuity under the provisions of the Act, 1972.
94. The judgment of Ameerbi (supra) relied upon by
the Division Bench of the High Court and placed by
the respondents before this Court is of no
assistance and has no application so far as the
question raised before us in the instant appeals.”
38. The collective reading of the foregoing
observations of Hon’ble Mr.Justice Abhay S. Oka
and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi projects dual
answers. It can be envisaged that Hon’ble
Mr.Justice Abhay S. Oka, in light of the
provisions of 2013, Act has held that the
Aangwadi Centers perform statutory duties, and
Page 31 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
hence it is held that the AWWs and AWHs hold
statutory posts, whereas Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay
Rastogi has recorded that the “the foremost
problem, the Aganwadi Workers face is that they
are not holding a civil post”, and are deprived
of regular salary. It is further held that
“honorarium”, is in fact “wages”. Thus, the
unabridged reading of the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Maniben (supra) manifests
that after holding that the “honorarium” is
“wages”, and is covered under the definition of
‘wages’ under the provisions of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and the status/establishment
of Aganwadi Centers, it is held by the Apex Court
that the AWWs and AWHs are entitled to the
statutory benefit of gratuity. Hence, instead of
“Honorarium” the remuneration paid to AWWs and
AWHs has to be addressed as “Wages”.
39. The observations made in paragraph No.25 of
the judgment in the case of Maniben (supra),
refers to the appointment done in the State of
Gujarat, as it begins with the expression “As far
as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the
appointments of AWWs and AWHs are governed by the
said Rules”. This observation is made in context
of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019, which
governs appointment and service conditions of
AWWs and AWHs. Thus, as admitted by learned
Page 32 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, the appointments
of the respondent – AWWs and AWHs are made
pursuant to the Government Resolution issued
under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
40. The issue, which still remains to be
addressed, is as to whether the appellants i.e.
State Government and Central Government can be
directed to formulate the policy for absorption
of AWWs and AWHs and treat them at par with
permanent Class-III and Class-IV employees of the
State Government.
41. The Apex Court, in light of the 2013, Act has
declared that the Anganwadi Centers perform
statutory function, and hence, it can be safely
said that the AWWs and AWHs hold statutory posts.
The Apex Court has also considered the mode of
recruitment of the AWWs and AWHs, which is
through a Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019,
which lays down exhaustive provisions relating to
selection criteria, duties, disciplinary action
etc. The respondent – AWWs and AWHs have admitted
their appointment, which is made under the
Government Resolution, which has genesis under
Article 162 of Constitution of India.
42. The Apex Court in the case of Security
Printing and Minting Corporayion of India Limited
Page 33 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
& Ors. vs. Vijay D.Kasbe & Ors., (2023) 18 S.C.C.
386 has held thus:
“34. It must be kept in mind that appointment either
to a civil post or in the civil services of the Union
or the State, is one of a status. It is not an em-
ployment governed strictly by a contract of service
or solely by labour welfare legislations, but by
statute or statutory rules issued under Article 309
or its proviso.”
43. Thus, it is no more res integra that the
nature of the statutory civil posts flows from
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In this
regard, we shall now refer to The Gujarat Civil
Services Classification and Recruitment (General)
Rules, 1967, which regulate the appointment on
various posts in the State Government
Departments. The relevant Rules are as under:
“RULE 2 : Definitions
(iii) “Post” means a post under the State Government
included in the State Services or Subordinate
Service;
(viii) “State Services” means the services and posts
specified as such in sub-rule(1) of rule 4 :
RULE 4 : State Services, Subordinate Services
and Inferior Services(1) The Services and posts classified-as Class-I or
Class-II shall be known as State Services.
(2) The Services and posts classified as Class-III
shall be known as Subordinate Services.
(3) The Services and posts classified as Class-IV
shall be known as Inferior Services.
XXXXXXXX
Page 34 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
RULE 8 : Condition as to prescribed qualifica-
tions
(1) Subject to the provisions of these rules, no
person shall be appointed to any service or post.
unless he possesses the qualification, if any, pre-
scribed in the rules relating to the recruitment to
such service or post (hereinafter referred to as
“the prescribed qualifications”).
(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other rule and subject to the provisions of these
rules, no person shall be appointed to service, or
post, except class-IV inferior service, unless at
the time of appointment he possesses a certificate
of basic knowledge of computer applications of any
Institute.
(2) Where the prescribed qualifications include a
qualification as to age limit the appointing author-
ity may relax the age limit in favour of candidates
belonging to the 4 [Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes] 5 [ 21 “Socially and Educationally Backward
Class and Economically Weaker Sections”] to the fol-
lowing extent, that to is to say:-
XXXXXXXXX
RULE 9 : Appointment to service or post in State
Service
(1) An appointment to any service or post included
in the State Services shall be made by the State
Government or by an authority duly on powered in
that behalf by the State Government either:-
(a) on the result of a competitive examination
held for the purpose.
(b) by direct selection, or
(c) by promotion, or
(d) by transfer
from amongst the persons satisfying the conditions
prescribed in these rules and other rules. if any,
relating to the recruitment to such service or post.
XXXXXX
(2) Every such appointment shall be made after con-
sultation with the Commission, unless under a regu-
Page 35 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
lation made under proviso to clause (3) of Article
320 of the Constitution of India, such consultation
is not necessary.”
44. Thus, as per Rule 4, the services and posts
of Government servant in the State of Gujarat are
classified in three categories – (a) State
Services – Class-I or Class-II, (b) Subordinate
Services, Class-III, and (c) Inferior Service
Class-IV. Rule 9 prescribes mode of selection,
which are four in number, i.e. (a) on the result
of a competitive examination held for the
purpose, (b) by direct selection, or (c) by
promotion, or (d) by transfer.
45. The Government of Gujarat, through its
Health and Family Welfare Department, issued
Resolution dated 09.03.1984, for the
implementation of the ICDS Scheme, through
voluntary organization. Vide Resolution dated
09.12.1988, the State Government prescribed the
eligibility criteria for appointment of AWWs
only. The educational qualification prescribed
was 12th, 10th and 7th Standard Pass in the order
of preference. Vide Resolution dated 29.11.2003,
the Government prescribed minimum educational
qualification of 10th and 7th Standard pass for
being appointed as AWWs / AWHs. On 28.02.2007,
the State Government declared that those AWHs,
who have completed 10 years will be entitled to
be appointed as AWWs subject to fulfilling of the
educational qualification. Finally, vide
Page 36 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Resolution dated 25.11.2019, the State Government
issued fresh guidelines to appoint the AWWs and
AWHs. The minimum educational qualification
prescribed under this Resolution for AWWs is 12th
Standard pass or 10th Standard pass with 02 years
Diploma Course from AICTE recognition, and for
AWHs minimum qualification is 10th Standard pass.
46. Though, as per the directions of the Apex
Court in the case of Maniben (supra), the AWWs
and AWHs are declared as holding statutory posts
in light of 2013, Act, the direction issued by
the learned Single Judge to treat them at par
with regularly selected permanent employees
holding posts either in the Central Government or
State Government is fallible, since there is
fundamental difference of their source of
recruitment. There is also vast difference in
their mode and manner of recruitment, requisite
educational qualifications etc. The AWWs and
AWHs, though can be said to be holding statutory
posts, and their appointments are neither illegal
nor irregular, they still have to satisfy the
mandate of the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules,
1967, more particularly Rule 4 and Rule 9
thereof. The AWWs cannot be treated at par with
Subordinate Service of Class-III. Similarly, AWHs
cannot be considered at par with Inferior Service
of Class-IV. Class-III and Class-IV employees in
Page 37 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
the State Government Departments, after
undergoing recruitment process as prescribed
under Rules 9 by the respective departments, are
placed in particular pay scales. It is pertinent
to note that the AWWs and AWHs are paid ‘wages’
and are not conferred regular pay-scale at par
with the State Government Class-III employees,
hence the comparison between AWWs and AWHs is
impracticable and unworkable. In hybrid system of
governance i.e. by the Central and States, the
Courts cannot issue directions either to the
Central Government or State Government treating
the posts as comparable or undertake necessary
exercise of comparison. The exclusive authority
and dominion on these subjects are on the Central
Government and the State Government, who have to
work in sync, in order to see that the Schemes of
such nature are effectively funded and
implemented for the benefit of the lowest strata
of society.
47. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of State of Assam & Ors. vs. Shri Kanak
Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884, while examining
the issue an employing holding a ‘Post’ in
context of Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the
Constitution has held thus:
” 10. In the context of Arts. 309, 310 and 311, a
post denotes an office. A person who holds a civil
post under a State holds “office” during the pleasurePage 38 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
of the Governor of the State, except as expressly
provided by the Constitution. A post under the State
is an office or a position to which duties in
connection with the affairs of the State are
attached, an office or a position to which a person
is appointed and which may exist apart from and
independently of the holder of the post. Art. 310 (2)
contemplates that a post may be abolished and a
person holding a post may be required to vacate the
post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing
apart from the holder of the post. A post may be
created before the appointment or simultaneously with
it. A post is an employment, but every employment is
not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a
post. A post under the State means a post under the
administrative control of the State. The State may
create or abolish the post and may regulate the
conditions of service of persons appointed to the
post.”
48. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of B.N.Nagarajan & Ors. vs. State of
Mysore & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1942 has held thus:
“5. It would be convenient to deal with this
argument at this stage. Mr. Nambiar contends that the
words “shall be as set forth in the rules of
recruitment of such service specially made in that
behalf” clearly show that till the rules are made in
that behalf no recruitment can be made to any
service. We are unable to accept this contention.
First it is not obligatory under proviso to Art. 309
to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service
can be constituted or a post created or filled. This
is not to say that it is not desirable that
ordinarily rules should be made on all matters which
are susceptible of being embodied in rules. Secondly
the State Government has executive power, in relation
to all matters with respect to which the Legislature
of the State has power, to make laws. It follows from
this that the State Government will have executive
power in respect of List II, Entry 41, State Public
Services. It was settled by this Court in Ram Jawaya
Kapur V/s. State of Punjab, 1955-2 SCR 225, that it
is not necessary that there must be a law already inPage 39 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
existence before the executive is enabled to function
and that the powers of the executive are limited
merely to the carrying out of these laws. We see
nothing in the terms of Art. 309 of the Constitution
which abridges the power of the executive to act
under Art. 162 of the Constitution without a law. It
is hardly necessary to mention that if there is a
statutory rule or an act on the matter, the executive
must abide by that act or rule and it cannot in
exercise of the executive power under Art. 162 of the
Constitution ignore or act contrary to that rule or
act.”
49. The Constitution Benches of the Apex Court
have held that in the context of Articles 309,
310 and 311 of the Constitution, a post denotes
an office, and a person who holds a civil post
under a State holds “office” during the pleasure
of the Governor of the State. It is held that a
post is an employment, but every employment is
not a post, and a casual labourer is not the
holder of a post. It is held that there is
nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the
Constitution, which abridges the power of the
executive to act under Article 162 of the
Constitution without a law, but if there is a
statutory rule or an act on the matter, the
executive must abide by that Act or Rule and it
cannot in exercise of the executive power under
Article 162 of the Constitution ignore or act
contrary to that rule or act.
Page 40 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
50. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer
to Clause 15.7 of the Government Resolution dated
25.11.2017 (considered in the case of Maniben
(supra). The same is translated as under:
“15.7. As per the decision of the Government, when
the Aganwadi Center is closed due to termination of
the scheme, restructuring, merger, or for any other
reason, the honorary service of the Anganwadi worker/
Children Home will be automatically deemed to have
ended and no dispute/claim can be raised in this
regard”.
51. Thus, the status of AWWs and AWHs is
coterminous with the status of Anaganwadi center.
In case, a Center is closed down to various
factors as mentioned in Clause 15.7, the service
of AWWs and AWHs will automatically ends. It is
also not disputed by the AWWs and AWHs that after
the objective of the Scheme is achieved, the
Anganwadi Centers are closed. Thus, the posts of
AWWs and AWHs are created and the budget is
sanctioned keeping in mind the feasibility of
extending the services to minor children and
mothers. Hence, such posts, which are created for
running an Aanganwadi Center will always remain
in the state of flux. Even if it held that the
AWWs and AWHs are appointed on posts sanctioned
by the State Government for a particular
Anganwadi Center, such posts cannot assume the
Page 41 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
colour of Class-III and Class-IV posts created
and filled in under the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules,
1967.
52. From an overall analysis of the scheme of
statutory Rules governing various categories of
posts, and nature of appointment of the AWWs and
AWHs, as prescribed under the Government
Resolution dated 25.11.2019, and in light of
settled legal precedents, we are of the opinion
that the learned Single Judge has erred in
issuing the directions to the Central Government
and State Government Departments to treat the
AWWs and AWHs at par to Class-III and Class-IV
posts.
DIRECTIONS OF FORMULATING THE POLICY FOR
REGULARIZATION
53. We shall now endevour to deal with the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge
with regard to the regularization.
54. Since, we have previously held that the
Anganwadi Centers do not have a permanent status,
and they are prone to be closed once the
objective of the Scheme is achieved, the AWWs and
AWHs, who are appointed in such Centers cannot be
treated as permanent employees, as their service
Page 42 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
has direct nexus with the perpetuation of the
Anganwadi Center. The AWWs and AWHs are appointed
under the ICDS Scheme and such scheme is
sustained by the budgetary provision and the
appointments are made looking to the budgetary
constrain, which has direct impact on the
beneficiaries such as lactating women, pregnant
women, minor children etc. The Court cannot be
oblivious of the fact of the financial burden,
which would fall on the Central Government and
State Government, in case the AWWs and AWHs are
directed to be absorbed in Class-III and Class-IV
posts respectively. In such scenario, the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case
of Umadevi (supra), has already held as below:
“19 One aspect arises. Obviously, the State is also
controlled by economic considerations and financial
implications of any public employment. The viability
of the department or the instrumentality or of the
project is also of equal concern for the State. The
State works out the scheme taking into consideration
the financial implications and the economic aspects.
Can the court impose on the State a financial burden
of this nature by insisting on regularization or
permanence in employment, when those employed
temporarily are not needed permanently or regularly-
As an example, we can envisage a direction to give
permanent employment to all those who are being
temporarily or casually employed in a public sector
undertaking. The burden may become so heavy by such a
direction that the undertaking itself may collapse
under its own weight. It is not as if this had not
happened. So, the court ought not to impose a
financial burden on the State by such directions, as
such directions may turn counter-productive.”
Page 43 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
55. The Scheme of ICDS is hybrid in nature and
the governance is also hybrid. 60% wages /
emoluments are being paid by the Central
Government, as mentioned hereinabove, and 40%
are being paid by the State Government. Thus,
looking to the nature of the ICDS Scheme, it is
not feasible to absorb the AWWs and AWHs in
Class-III and Class-IV posts respectively of the
State Government unless either the Central
Government exclusively frames statutory rules in
light of the 2013 Act or the State Government
amends the Gujarat Civil Services Classification
(General) Rules, 1967 or issues any statutory
rules under Article 309 of the Constitution to
create the posts for the AWWs and AWHs. The
financial implicationss due to regularization of
AWWs and AWHss will not be confined to the State
of Gujarat since the ICDS Scheme involves the
entire country. A huge financial burden on
absorption to Class-III and Class-IV posts, will
have a cascading effect on the effective
implementation of the Scheme directly impacting
the beneficiaries.
56. The Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare
Association, 2006 (1) SCC 567, while considering
the issue of regularization in context of
Page 44 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Articles 162 and Article 309 of the Constitution
has held thus:
“44. The question which now arises for consideration
is as to whether the High Court was justified in
directing regularization of the services of the
respondents. It was evidently not. In a large number
of decisions, this Court has categorically held that
it is not open to a High Court to exercise its
discretion under Art. 226 of the Constitution of
India either to frame a scheme by itself or to direct
the State to frame a scheme for regularising the
services of ad hoc employees or daily wages employees
who had not been appointed in terms of the extant
service rules framed either under a statute or under
the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India.
Such a scheme, even if framed by the State, would not
meet the requirements of law as the executive order
made under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India
cannot prevail over a statute or statutory rules
framed under proviso to Art. 309 thereof. The State
is obligated to make appointments only in fulfillment
of its constitutional obligation as laid down in Art.
14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not by
way of any regularization scheme. In our
constitutional schemes, all eligible persons
similarly situated must be given opportunity to apply
for and receive considerations for appointments at
the hands of the authorities of the State. Denial of
such a claim by some officers of the State times and
again had been deprecated by this Court. In any view,
in our democratic polity, an authority howsoever high
it may be cannot act in breach of an existing statute
or the rules which hold the field.”
57. The Apex court has cautioned the High Court
in issuing directions either to frame a scheme by
itself or to direct the State to frame a Scheme
for regularization while exercising its
discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution,
in case of those employees, who are not appointed
Page 45 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
in terms of either under a statute or under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. It is
further held that any scheme of regularization
would not meet the requirements of law as the
Executive Order made under Article 162 of the
Constitution cannot prevail over a statute or
statutory rules framed under the proviso to
Article 309 thereof. Thus, the learned Single
Judge has erred in issuing directions to the
Central Government and State Government
Departments to frame a scheme of regularization
of AWWs and AWHs, who are working for upto 6
hours and are appointed under the Government
Resolution issued under Article 162 of the
Constitution by comparing them to Class-III and
Class-IV posts, which are governed by the
statutory Rules under Article 309 of the
Constitution.
58. The decision of the Apex Court in case of
Jaggo (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the
AWWs and AWHs since, they are appointed in an
Aaganwadi Center, which has no permanent status,
and can be closed once the objective of the
Scheme is achieved. In case of Jaggo (supra), the
Supreme court has considered the case of ad-hoc,
temporary employees employed in a Central Water
Commission, who were performing duties akin to
regular employees since long. In the instant
case, the AWWs and AWHs, though are performing
Page 46 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
duties since long, cannot be made permanent
looking to the nature of Scheme, which is
mutually introduced and implemented by Central
and State governments, and is run by allocation
of yearly budget.
DIRECTIONS TO GRANT OF MINIMUM OF PAYSCALE BY
INVOKING PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK
59. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge
has directed the appellants to treat the AWWs and
AWHs equivalent to Class-III and Class-IV
employees and absorb them and confer the benefit
of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The doctrine of
“equal pay for equal work” stems out of Article
39(d) of the Constitution of India. The Apex
Court in the case of Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal, 2019
(3) S.C.C. 547, has reiterated the parameters to
be applied for claiming equal pay on equal work.
The same are as under:
“Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay
scale:-
20. Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in
view the several factors i.e.
(i) method of recruitment;
(ii) level at which recruitment is made;
(iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre;
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications
required; (v) avenues of promotion;
(vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and
(vii) employer’s capacity to pay, etc.
21 It is well settled that for considering the
equation of posts and the issue of equivalence of
posts, the following factors had been held to be
Page 47 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
determinative:-
(i) The nature and duties of a post;
(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the
officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or
other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed
for recruitment to the post; and
(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India v.
P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850).
XXX XXX XXX
23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay
scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities
is on the person claiming such right. The person
claiming parity must produce material before the
court to prove that the nature of duties and
functions are similar and that they are entitled to
parity of pay scales. After referring to number of
judgments and observing that it is the duty of an
employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish
that he had been discriminated against, this Court,
in SAIL, held as under:-
“22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity
of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of
India to prove and establish that he had been
discriminated against, as the question of parity
has to be decided on consideration of various facts
and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of “equal
pay for equal work” as enshrined under Article
39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14
thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The
constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for
equal work for those who are equally placed in
all respects. The court must consider the
factors like the source and mode of
recruitment/appointment, the qualifications,
the nature of work, the value thereof,
responsibilities, reliability, experience,
confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other
words, the equality clause can be invoked in
the matter of pay scales only when there is
wholesome/wholesale identity between the
holders of two posts. The burden of
establishing right and parity in employment isPage 48 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
only on the person claiming such right. (Vide
U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v.
Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82,
Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar
(2008) 1 SCC 368, Union of India v. Dineshan
K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of India and Others
v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630,
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
(2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz
Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and
Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC
635).”
60. In the instant case, the AWWs and AWHs have
not discharged their burden in proving their
equivalence of work with any other Class-III and
Class-IV posts. The most seminal facet for
equation/comparison of posts is the
qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the
posts. The other is nature and responsibilities
of duties and salary or pay of the post. Unless,
the employees prove these factors on comparison
to the post, of which they are claiming equal
pay, the benefit of even minimum of pay-scale,
which the regularly recruited Government
employees under the statutory rules, cannot be
conferred. In the present case, looking to the
status and nature of duties of the AWWs and AWHs,
it is impossible to compare their nature of
duties to any other Class-III and Class-IV
employees, who are regularly employed in the
department of State of Gujarat. There are various
departments in the State Government, which are
Page 49 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
comprising of numerous Class-III and Class-IV
employees. In such scenario, it is impossible to
direct the appellants to confer the benefit of
equal pay to AWWs and AWHs in wake of the fact
that there is no post having similar duties
listed under the Statutory Rules.
61. Thus, in absence of any comparison of work of
AWWs and AWHs to the Class-III and IV posts, the
learned Single Judge fell in error in invoking
the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
62. In the present case, the AWWs and AWHs are
paid fixed wages for rendering upto 6 hours
duties. Thus, the monthly remuneration, which is
being paid to the AWWs and AWHs is impossible to
be compared to the salary/pay-scale of the
regularly appointed employees of the State
Government and hence, the directions issued by
the learned Single Judge by invoking the
principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ cannot be
sustained.
63. The provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules,
1967, which are framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution, cannot be made applicable to the
AWWs and AWHs and correspondingly, the pay-
scale / pay-grade / pay-band of Class-III and
Class-IV employees cannot be extended to the AWWs
Page 50 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
and AWHs. The mode of recruitment of the AWWs and
AWHs and Class-III and Class-IV employees, who
are being employed in different departments of
the State of Gujarat, cannot be compared and the
same are distinctly different. The appointment of
the AWWs and AWHs stems out of the Government
Resolution issued by the State Government, while
exercising the powers under Article 162 of the
Constitution, whereas the Class-III and Class-IV
posts are governed by statutory Rules framed
under Article 309 of the Constitution.
64. There is another aspect, which will also
impact the directions issue by the learned Single
Judge. The issue is about promotion / appointment
from the post of the AWW to Mukhya Sevika. The
post of Mukhya Sevika is Class-III post under the
Panchayat Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, which
are statutory. Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the said Rules
read as thus:
“4. To be eligible for appointment by nomination from
amongst the anganwadi Workers to the post mentioned
in rule 2 above, a candidate shall-
(a) Not be more than 45 years of age;
(b) have passed Secondary School Certificate
Examination with eleventh month;s training of Bal
Sevika and have at least ten years experience as an
Anganwadi Worker under the integrated Child
Development Services Programme;
(c) have adequate knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi
Page 51 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
5. The Nomination shall be made by the Gujarat
District Panchayat Service Committee.
6. appointment by direct selection and by
nomination from amonst the Anganwadi Workers shall be
made in the ratio of 1:1.”
65. Thus, the appointment to the post of Mukhya
Sevikas, Class-III is made by way of nomination
from amongst the AWWs, who possess the
qualification / criteria mentioned in Rule 4. The
nomination is to be done by the Gujarat District
Panchayat Service Selection Committee following
the aforesaid rules. The promotional post of
Mukhya Sevika is Child Development Project
Officer (CDPO), a Class-II post.
66. In case the AWWs, who are held to be eligible
for the appointment, by nomination to the post of
Mukhya Sevika, Class-III, under the Panchayat
Service Recruitment Rules, 2004, are declared to
be absorbed in Class-III post, this will have
direct consequence on the post of Mukhya Sevikas,
Class-III. The post of Mukhya Sevika is the
statutory post under the Panchayat Service
Recruitment Rules, 2004 and is governed by the
revision of Pay Commission and they are conferred
the pay-scale under such Pay Commissions and
higher pay-scales under the State Government
policies, and the AWWs i.e. feeder post, are paid
wages. The AWHs, on completion of 10 years, are
appointed as AWWs subject to fulfilling
Page 52 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
eligibility. The wages of AWWs and AWHs are
regulated by both Central Government and State
Government in the ratio of 60:40, whereas the pay
scale of Mukhiya Sevika, a Class-III post in the
setup of the State Government Panchayat
Department and borne exclusively by the State
Government. Hence, the State Government cannot be
directed to confer minimum pay scale of Class-III
and Class-IV posts.
DIRECTION OF MINIMUM WAGES
67. The final issue, which remains to be
deliberated upon, is the conferment of minimum
wages to the AWWs and AWHs.
68. In this regard, we may borrow the perception
of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
the decision rendered in the case of Hindustan
Times Ltd., New Delhi vs. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC
1332, wherein the Apex Court, while examining the
issue of fixation and revision of wages under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has held as under:
“5. The fixation of wage structure is among the most
difficult tasks that industrial adjudication has to
tackle. On the one hand not only the demands of
social justice but also the claims of national
economy require that attempts should be made to
secure to workmen a fair share of the national
income which they help to produce, on the other
hand, care has to be taken that the attempt at a
fair distribution does not tend to dry up the source
of the national income itself. On the one hand,
better living conditions for workmen that can only
be possible by giving them a “living wage” will tendPage 53 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
to increase the nation’s wealth and income on the
other hand, unreasonable inroads on the profits of
the capitalists might have a tendency to drive
capital away from fruitful employment and even to
affect prejudicially capital formation itself. The
rise in prices that often results from the rise of
the workmen’s wages may in its turn affect other
members of the community and may even affect
prejudicially the living conditions of the workmen
themselves. The effect of such a rise in price on
the Country’s international trade cannot also be
always ignored. Thus numerous complex factors, some
of which are economic and some spring from social
philosophy give rise to conflicting considerations
that have to be borne in mind. Nor does the process
of valuation of the numerous factors remain static.
6. In trying to keep true to the two points of
social philosophy and economic necessities which vie
for consideration, industrial adjudication has set
for itself certain standards in the matter of wage
fixation. At the bottom of the ladder, there is the
minimum basic wage which the employer of any
industrial labour must pay in order to be allowed to
continue an industry. Above this is the fair wage,
which may roughly be said to approximate to the need
based minimum, in the sense of a wage which is
“adequate to cover the normal needs of the average
employee regarded as a human being in a civilised
society.” Above the fair wage is the “living wage” a
wage “which will maintain the workman in the highest
state of industrial efficiency, which will enable
him to provide his family with all the material
things which are needed for their health and
physical well-being, enough to enable him to qualify
to discharge his duties as a citizen.” (Cited with
approval by Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar in Standard
Vacuum Company’s Case (1) from “The living Wage” by
Philip Snowden).”
69. Subsequently, in the case of Workmen
represented by Secretary vs. Reptakos Brett. &
Co. Ltd. & Ors., (1992) 1 S.C.C. 290, the Apex
Court has reiterated as under:
Page 54 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
“12. The concept of ‘minimum wage’ is no longer the
same as it was in 1936. Even 1957 is way behind. A
worker’s wage is no longer a contract between an
employer and an employee. It has the force of
collective bargaining under the labour laws. Each
category of the wage structure has to be tested at
the anvil of social justice which is the live-fibre
of our society today. Keeping in view the socio-
economic aspect of the wage structure, we are of the
view that it is necessary to add the following
additional component as a guide for fixing the
minimum wage in the industry:
“(vi) children’s education, medical requirement
minimum recreation including festivals/ceremonies and
provision for old age marriages etc. should further
constitute 25 per cent of the total minimum wage.”
13. The wage structure which approximately answers
the above six components is nothing more than a
minimum wage at subsistence level. The employees are
entitled to the minimum wage at all times and under
all circumstances. An employer who cannot pay the
minimum wage has no right to engage labour and no
justification to run the industry”.
14 A living wage has been promised to the workers
under the Constitution. A ‘socialist’ framework to
enable the working people a decent standard of life,
has further been promised by the 42nd Amendment. The
workers are hopefully looking forward to achieve the
said ideal. The promises are pilling-up but the day
of fulfilment is nowhere in sight. Industrial wage –
looking as a whole – has not yet risen higher than
the level of minimum wage .”
70. Albeit, we have addressed the financial
implications of “regularization”-absorption” of
AWWs and AWHs on Class-III and Class-IV posts
however, concurrently, we cannot be seen as
intransigent for enhancement of wages.
Indubitably, the AWWs and AWHs are being paid a
meager amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,500/-
Page 55 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
respectively. Though, the foregoing decisions of
the Apex Court relate to the fixation of wages of
workmen / labourers governed by the Labour Laws,
the observations made by the Apex Court relating
to the socio-economic factors, while fixing the
wages, cannot be ignored and will apply to the
working conditions, responsibilities and the
onerous duties of the AWWs and AWHs, more
particularly on their inclusion under the
umbrella of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court almost
60 years back has emphasized the living
conditions of workmen, rise in prices and various
complex factors, some of which are economic and
some spring from social philosophy give rise to
conflicting considerations that have to be borne
in mind. The Apex court has categorized, ‘minimum
basic wage’, ‘fair wage’ and ‘living wage’. The
‘minimum basic wage’ is paid in order to be
allowed to continue an industry. Thereafter,
above that is the ‘fair wage’, which may roughly
be said to approximate to the need based minimum,
in the sense of a wage which is “adequate to
cover the normal needs of the average employee
regarded as a human being in a civilized
society.” Above the fair wage is the “living
wage” a wage “which will maintain the workman in
the highest state of industrial efficiency, which
will enable him to provide his family with all
the material things which are needed for their
Page 56 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
health and physical well-being, enough to enable
him to qualify to discharge his duties as a
citizen. Subsequently, in the case of Reptakos
Brett. & Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has
asserted the socio-economic facet of the wage
structure. The Apex Court held that while fixing
the minimum wage, the industry has to add the
component of children’s education, medical
requirement minimum recreation, including
festivals/ ceremonies and provision for old age
marriages etc. It further held that a wage
structure, which approximately answers the above
six components, is nothing more than a minimum
wage at subsistence level, and the employees are
entitled to the minimum wage at all times and
under all circumstances. The Apex Court has also
cautioned that an employer, who cannot pay the
minimum wage, has no right to engage labour and
no justification to run the industry.
71. In the decision of Maniben (supra), the Apex
Court has held that “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
establishment to which the 1972 Act “applies”,
the AWWs and AWHs are employee within the meaning
of 1972 Act. In view of the said Rules of the
Gujarat Government, the Aanganwadi Centers are
Page 57 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
not under the control of the Central Government.
Therefore, the State Government will be an
appropriate Government within the meaning of
clause(a) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act.”
72. Thus, considering the nature of duties and
the mode of appointment, in our considered
opinion, the AWWs and AWHs are entitled to at
least “Living wage” above the ‘Minimum’ and ‘Fair
wage’ so that it may supply the need of their
families with all the material things, which are
needed for their health and physical well-being,
enough to enable them to qualify to discharge
their duties as a citizens. The meager amount of
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,500/- to the AWWs and AWHs
impinges their arduous obligations. The irony is
that the AWWs and AWHs, who fulfill the needs of
pregnant and lactating mothers, health and
education of minors, are deprived of living a
life with dignity and respect for want of
apposite remuneration. Hence, the denial of
“Living Wage” to the AWWs and AWHs is violative
of fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.
73. Thus, the Central Government and the State
Government cannot ignore the aforesaid aspects,
while fixing and granting emoluments to the AWWs
Page 58 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
and AWHs, more particularly in wake of the
observations made by the Apex Court in the case
of Maniben (supra), to the extent as under:
” PLIGHT OF AWWs AND AWHs
26. AWWs and AWHs have been assigned all-pervasive
duties, which include identification of the
beneficiaries, cooking nutritious food, serving
healthy food to the beneficiaries, conducting
preschool for the children of the age group of 3 to
6 years, and making frequent home visits for various
reasons. Implementation of very important and
innovative provisions relating to children, pregnant
women as well as lactating mothers under the 2013
Act has been entrusted to them. It is thus
impossible to accept the contention that the job
assigned to AWWs and AWHs is a part-time job. The
Government Resolution dated 25th November 2019,
which prescribes duties of AWWs and AWHs, does not
lay down that their job is a part-time job.
Considering the nature of duties specified
thereunder, it is full-time employment.
27. In the State of Gujarat, AWWs are being paid
monthly remuneration of only Rs. 7,800/- and AWHs
are being paid monthly remuneration of only Rs.
3,950/-. AWWs working in mini-Anganwadi centres are
being paid a sum of Rs. 4,400/- per month. The
important tasks of providing food security to
children in the age group of 6 months to 6 years,
pregnant women as well as lactating mothers have
been assigned to them. In addition, there is a duty
to render pre-school education. 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 59 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
POWER OF THE HIGH COURT TO DETERMINE WAGES
74. The core question, which stares at us, is
that, whether this Court can snub the plight of
AWWs and AWHs despite the observations of the
Apex Court. We are conscious of the scope, ambit
and restraints on the powers of High Court in
issuing directions for determining the
appropriate wages. It is trite that a Letters
Patent Appeal, as permitted by the Letters
Patent, is normally an intra-court appeal
whereunder the Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a
Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in
exercise of the same jurisdiction as is was
vested in the Single Bench. (vide: Baddula
Lakshmaiah vs. Anjaneya Swami Temple, (1996) 3
S.C.C. 52). It has become obligatory for us to
address the plight of AWWs and AWHs, so far,
their claim for appropriate wage is concerned.
75. The Apex Court has taken note of the
employment of the AWWs and AWHs as full-time, and
their onerous and arduous duties, which have
direct influence on health and education of
minors and their mothers. The Central Government
and the State Government are also called upon to
take serious note of the plight of the AWWs and
AWHs, who are rendering important services on a
paltry monthly remuneration. Even after the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Maniben (supra), the Central and State Government
Page 60 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
have remained insouciant in addressing the
issues. In order to verify the status of the AWWs
and AWHs, after the judgment of the Apex Court,
vide order dated 18.06.2025, we had called upon
the appellants to produce the data showing any
revision of wages, and accordingly an affidavit
dated 18.07.2025 was filed showing the data of
entire State. On a perusal of the same, we did
not find any increase in the wages of the AWWs
and AWHs and their plight remains inexorable,
hence, this Court cannot have blinkered vision
for the paltry remuneration paid to them.
76. Despite the observations made by the Apex
Court, way back in the year 2022 in the case of
Maniben (supra), the wages remain paltry, and
they are also not being paid minimum wages. We
may derive the support from the below mentioned
decision of the Apex Court for answering the
issue of fixation and payment of wages by us. The
Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Akhil
Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) vs.
Union of India, (1981) 1 S.C.C. 246, while
considering the State’s obligation enshrined in
Directive Principles in Part-IV of the
Constitution and enforcement of the fundamental
rights, has observed thus:
“123. … … … The Fundamental rights are intended to
foster the ideal of a political democracy and to
prevent the establishment of authoritarian rule butPage 61 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
they are of no value unless they can be enforced by
resort to courts. So they are made justiciable. But,
it is also evident that notwithstanding their great
importance, the directive principles cannot in the
very nature of things be enforced in a court of law.
It is unimaginable that any court can compel a
legislature to make a law. If the court can compel
Parliament to make laws then parliamentary democracy
would soon be reduced to an oligarchy of Judges. It
is in that sense that the Constitution says that the
directive principles shall not be enforceable by
courts. It does not mean that directive principles
are less important than Fundamental rights or that
they are not binding on the various organs of the
State. Article 37 of the Constitution emphatically
states that directive principles are nevertheless
fundamental in the governance of the country and it
shall be the duty of the State to apply these
principles in making laws. It follows that it becomes
the duty of the court to apply the directive
principles in interpreting the Constitution and the
laws. The directive principles should serve the
courts as a code of interpretation. Fundamental
rights should thus be interpreted in the light of the
directive principles and the latter should, whenever
and wherever possible, be read into the former. Every
law attacked on the ground of infringement of a
Fundamental Right should, among other considerations,
be examined to find out if the law does not advance
one or other of the directive principles or if it is
not in discharge of some of the undoubted obligations
of the State, constitutional or otherwise, towards
its citizens or sections of its citizens, flowing out
of the preamble, the directive principles and other
provisions of the Constitution.”
77. Thus, the AWWs and AWHs, who constantly
endeavour for upliftment of the vulnerable
sections of society and are backbone of the ICDS
Scheme, which stems out from the directive
principles, for achieving constitutional goal of
reducing and wiping out the mal-nutrition, health
and illiteracy; cannot be deprived of better
Page 62 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
wages. The Apex Court has held that the
fundamental rights should be interpreted in the
light of the directive principles and the latter
should, whenever and wherever possible, be read
into the former.
78. In the case of Benedict Denis Kinny vs. Tulip
Brian Miranda, (2021) 12 S.C.C. 780, the Apex
Court has emphasized on the power of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
relevant observations are as under:
“21. We need to first notice the nature and extent of
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial
review vested in the High Courts under Article 226
and this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
is an integral and essential feature of the
Constitution and is basic structure of our
Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is
original, extraordinary and discretionary. The look
out of the High Court is to see whether injustice has
resulted on account of any decision of a
constitutional authority, a statutory authority, a
tribunal or an authority within meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution. The judicial review is designed
to prevent cases of abuse of power or neglect of a
duty by the public authority. The jurisdiction under
Article 226 is used for enforcement of various rights
of the public or to compel public/statutory
authorities to discharge the public functions
entrusted on them. The Courts are guardians of the
rights and liberties of the citizen and they shall
fail in their responsibility if they abdicate their
solemn duty towards the citizens. The scope of
Article 226 is very wide and can be used to remedy
injustice wherever it is found. The High Court and
Supreme Court are the Constitutional Courts, which
have been conferred right of judicial review to
protect the fundamental and other rights of the
citizens… … … ”
Page 63 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
79. It is no more res integra, that the power of
the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution though are discretionary and has no
fetters, but it must be exercised subject to
certain self-imposed limitations. It is declared
by the Apex Court that while exercising the
extraordinary and discretion jurisdiction under
Article 226, the High Court has to examine that
whether the injustice has resulted on account of
any decision of a constitutional authority, a
statutory authority, a tribunal or an authority
within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,
and the judicial review is intended to prevent
cases of abuse of power or neglect of a duty by
the public authority. The jurisdiction under
Article 226 is a check on the discharge on public
functions and statutory duties entrust to them,
and the High Court is the guardians of the rights
and liberties of the citizen and any failure in
the responsibility will amount to abdication of
solemn duty towards the citizens. It is held that
the scope of Article 226 is very wide and can be
used to remedy injustice wherever it is found,
and the right of judicial review conferred to the
Constitutional Court is to protect the
fundamental and other rights of the citizens.
80. Thus, the settled legal precedent does
restrain this Court to pass necessary directions
Page 64 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
for addressing the issue of paltry wages to the
AWWs and AWHs, more predominantly in wake of the
observations made by the Apex court in the case
of Maniben (supra).
81. Before venturing into the issue of
determining the suitable wages for AWWs and AWHs,
it is necessary to examine the hierarchy of posts
in the ICDS Scheme. As per the “Mukhya Sevika,
Class-III in the Superior Panchayat Service
Recruitment Rules, 2013”, an AWW who has passed
the Secondary School Certificate Examination from
Secondary and/or Higher Secondary Education
Board; and has at least ten years’ experience
as Anganwadi worker under the Integrated Child
Development Services Programme can be appointed
as Mukhya Sevika by way of direct selection.
Similarly, the AWHs are appointed as AWWs after
rendering 10 years of service in the Aaganwadi
Centre.
82. Presently, the Mukhya Sevikas are being paid
a fixed pay of Rs.40,800/- for five years, and on
completion of five years, they are placed in
regular pay scale of Rs.29,200-92,300/-. There is
vast difference of Rs.4,500/- between the
wages/honorarium paid to the AWWs and AWHs. Thus,
the directions to pay only minimum wages of
Rs.14,800/- at par with the part-time employees
employed for six hours in other departments
Page 65 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
cannot be uniformly applied to AWWs and AWHs. The
nature of duties under the ICDS Scheme of the
AWWs and AWHs are different hence, the amount of
remuneration varies. There is also huge
difference between the onerous duties rendered by
the AWWs and AWHs and the part-timers employed by
other State Departments. The duties and
obligations of AWWs and AWHs influence the lowest
strata of social fabric, and their duties cannot
be compared to the duties rendered by other part-
timers engaged for six hours by the State
Departments, for whom the policy of minimum wages
of paying Rs.14,800/- is implemented vide
Circular dated 16.07.2019. The amount of
Rs.14,800/-, in the said Circular, is fixed from
01.01.2019, considering the minimum wages payable
to Class-IV employees.
83. In order to sort out the conundrum, and to
see that appropriate Living Wage is paid, we have
considered the following aspects :
(a) Full time employment of the AWWs and
AWHs, as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Maniben (supra);
(b) Applicability of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 to the AWWs and AWHs, and inclusion
of “Honorarium” in the definition of “Wages”;
Page 66 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
(c) Entitlement of minimum wages under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1972 to the AWWs and AWHs,
once they are declared to be holding a
statutory post;
(d) Working for six hours;
(e) Entitlement of Rs.14,800/- under the
State Government Resolution dated 16.07.2019
fixing minimum wages of part-time employees
working for six hours, which is minimum pay-
scale of Class-IV employees;
(f) Onerous and arduous duties and
obligations involving pregnant and lactating
women and minors, which is unmatched to the
duties of other part-time employees.
(g) Fixed wages of Rs.40,800/- paid to Mukhya
Sevikas.
84. By considering the foregoing features, we
issue the following directions.
A)The Appellants – Central Government and the
State Government Departments, jointly or the
State Government exclusively, shall pay the
minimum monthly wages of Rs.14,800/- over and
above of Rs.10,000/- to the AWWs (i.e
Rs.24,800/- which is less than the fixed pay
Page 67 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
of Mukhiya Sevika, i.e Rs.40,800/-.
Correspondingly, the AWHs shall also be paid
the minimum wages of Rs.14.800/- plus
Rs.5,500/- (i.e Rs.20,300/-). The aforesaid
wages, shall be subject to further
corresponding revisions as and when declared
by the Central Government or the State
Government.
B)Since, the AWWs and AWHs are being paid from
the allocated budgetary funds of particular
financial year for implementation and running
Integrated Child Development Service Scheme,
and the funds are tailored looking to the
strength of the AWWs and AWHs, the directions
to grant aforesaid wages retrospectively from
preceding three years of filing of the writ
petitions, as directed by the learned Single
Judge will increase the financial burden
substantially and retrospectively. Hence, we
direct that the AWWs and AWHs shall be paid
the arrears of wages fixed by this Court
w.e.f. from Financial Year 01.04.2025.
C)The arrears and the actual minimum wages
shall be paid within a period of 06 (six)
months from the date of receipt of the writ
of the present order.
Page 68 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
D)The present directions will apply to all the
AWWs and AWHs engaged in all the Anganwadi
Centers of the State of Gujarat, and those
who have not approached this Court, shall not
be compelled to file writ petition(s) for
obtaining similar order from the High Court.
E)The directions issued by the learned Single
Judge declaring to treat the AWWs and AWHs at
par with regularly selected permanent
employees holding civil posts in State
Government and Central Government and further
directing to frame a policy for absorption
and to confer consequential benefit of
regularization are set aside.
F)The direction issued by the learned Single
Judge for payment of salary of minimum of
pay-scale is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
85. We appreciate the endeavor of the learned
Single Judge in perceiving the plight of the AWWs
and AWHs, which has influenced us to increase
their wages. The Letters Patent Appeals are
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
86. As a sequel, the connected civil applications
also stand disposed of.
Page 69 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/363/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 20/08/2025
undefined
Registry to place a copy of this order in
each of the connected matters.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP / NVMEWADA /S-1-30
Page 70 of 70
Uploaded by N.V.MEWADA(HC01571) on Wed Aug 20 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 20 23:42:37 IST 2025