w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union (Regd.) v/s Union Of India & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

    WP (C) No.1158 of 1992

    Decided On, 27 May 2011

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

    For the Petitioner: Mr.A.K.Bajpai, Mr.B.K.Parsad and Mr.Varun Parsad, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan, Mr.Neeraj Chaudhary and Mr.Aditya Garg, Advocates.



Judgment Text

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.


1. The petitioner, Akhil Bhartiya Anganwadi Kamgar Union, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court seeking the status of Government employees for anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers and praying for pay parity with primary teachers and nurses of establishments or of any local authority in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 for anganwadi workers and in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150 to anganwadi helpers on parity with ayas/peons with past benefit of service from the date of their appointments. A further prayer made was to merge these categories with seven other categories of the Scheme of Integrated Child Development Service Scheme (?the said Scheme‟ for short) stated to have been formulated in pursuance to the National Policy for Children.


2. The writ petition was, however, transferred to this Court to be treated as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.02.1992.


3. The writ petition was admitted on 14.05.1993 when on the interim application, the statement of the counsel for the then Delhi Administration (now Govt. of NCT of Delhi) was recorded that the services of these categories of persons were not being terminated and that they were being paid enhanced honorarium as per Rules. The interim application was accordingly disposed of. The matter has thereafter had a chequered history on account of non prosecution by the petitioner which was dismissed for non prosecution and restored on three different occasions.


4. The petitioner claims to be a registered trade union under the Trade Union Act, 1926. Insofar as the factual matrix of the case is concerned, it has been set out that the transition from a joint family system to nuclear type family often require both the parents to work and thus additional support through outside interventions is required for proper health care, education, nutrition and social well being of children. A number of voluntary organizations played a pioneering role in this effort and projects of child care were included in successive five year plans of social welfare, education and health. This endeavour received a fillip on account of the adoption of the National Policy for Children by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi in August, 1974 and in pursuance thereto, the said scheme was evolved to make a coordinated effort for an integrated programme of delivery of a package of such services. The objectives of the said Scheme are stated to be as under:


?i) To improve the nutritional and health status of children in the age group 0-6 years;


ii) To lay the foundation for proper psychological, physical and social development of the child.


iii) To reduce the incidence of mortality, morbidity, malnutrition and school drop out. iv) To achieve effective coordinated policy and its implementation amongst the various departments to promote child development and v) To enhance the capability of the mother to look after the normal health and nutritional needs of the child through proper nutrition and health education.?


5. It is for achieving the aforesaid objectives that anganwadi workers were established at various places including in the then Union Territory of Delhi. The anganwadis are to be run by anganwadi workers who are village level workers/ward level workers and in charge for delivery of various services envisaged under the said Scheme. Each anganwadi is to be assisted by a helper who would invariably be a lady belonging to the same village, local community and well versed in cooking and processing the food, cleaning of anganwadi and the utensils used for anganwadi. The payment was being made as honorarium on a monthly basis. The selection of such anganwadi workers is stated to be made by a committee of official and non officials at the project level. No educational qualification was provided for anganwadi workers who may be matriculate or non-matriculate though there was a differential in the honorarium. The anganwadi workers are stated to be responsible for organizing pre-school activities for about 40 children in the age group of 3-5 years, arranging supplementary nutritional food for children of age group 6 months to 5 years and expectant and nursing mothers, giving health and nutrition education to mothers, making home visits for educating parents, eliciting community support and participation, assisting the Primary Health Centre Staff in implementation of immunization and a host of such other services. The work of an anganwadi is stated to be supervised by mukhyasevikas or supervisors. A training scheme is stated to have been envisaged for such anganwadi workers who would carry a kit to use while conducting educational activities. The anganwadi workers are thus stated to be at the frontline of the said Scheme being selected from the community and having a pivotal role due to the close and continuous contact with the community. They are expected to monitor the growth of children and teach mothers how to prevent and cope with common ailments, educate parents, etc. In the said Scheme, various categories of persons are deployed which include Child Development Project Officer (CPDO), supervisors, account-cum store keepers etc, numbering seven such categories. These seven categories of employees including drivers and peons are stated to be in a regular pay scale. It is only the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers who are given an honorarium. The use of the word ?honorarium‟ is said to deny them the opportunity of various beneficial legislations even though the duties of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are similar to primary teachers and nurses of establishments or of any local authority in a school or a hospital. The said beneficial legislations are stated to include The Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are stated to be required to attend to the duties under the said Scheme by reaching at 9 am in the morning and marking their presence in the attendance register. They perform five hours of duty and are allowed 12 casual leaves in a year. They are entitled to maternity benefits, travelling allowance for attending meetings, visiting places out of their jurisdiction, but are denied the benefits given to the regular staff of the seven categories. The petition is stated to be predicated on a plea of equal pay for equal work and the fact that even the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were being violated. The anganwadi workers are stated to be in the category of highly skilled workers while anganwadi helpers are stated to be in the category of semi-skilled workers.


6. The petitioner seeks to rely upon the Hand Book of Instructions regarding Integrated Child Development Service Programme. The said Scheme in para 3.1 deals with staff pattern. However, anganwadi workers are set out in para (iv), particulars of which are as under:


? IV. Anganwadi Worker 3.2.12 The anganwadi worker should be a lady (18-44 years) from the local village and acceptable in the local community. Special care should be taken in her selection so that the children of Scheduled Caste and other weaker sections of the society are ensured free access to Anganwadi. It is suggested that the AWWs in the selected project areas may be selected by a committee consisting of the District Social Welfare Officer, the BDO, the CPDO, the Medical Officer of the primary health centre, the President of the Taluka Panchayat/Block Advisory Committee, the district representative of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board and any other non-officials which the State Government may consider appropriate.?


7. The job responsibilities of various functionaries stated in para 3.3.4 vis--vis anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are as under:


? 3.3.4 Anganwadi Worker


1. To weigh each child every month, record the weight in graph on the growth card, use referral card for referring cases of mothers/children to the sub-centres/PHC etc. and maintain child cards for children below 6 years and produce these cards before the visiting medical and para-medical personnel.


2. To carry out a quick sample census of all the families, especially mothers and children in those families in their respective area of work.


3. To organize non-formal pre-school activities in an anganwadi for about 40 children in the age group 3-5 years of age and to help in designing and making of toys and play equipment of rural character and origin for use in anganwadi.


4. To organize supplementary nutrition feeding for children (0-6 years) and expectant and nursing mothers by planning the menu based on locally available food and local recipes.


5. To provide health and nutrition education to mothers.


6. To make home visits for educating parents to enable mothers to plan an effective

role in the child‟s growth and development particularly in the case of children

attending the anganwadis.


7. To elicit community support and participation in running the programme.


8. To assist the PHC staff in the implementation of health component of the programme viz. immunization, health check-up etc.


9. To maintain routine files and records.


10. To bring to the notice of the CDPO any development in the village which requires

further attention, particularly in regard to the work of the coordinating arrangements of different departments in the village.


11. To maintain liaison with other institutions. (Mahila Mandals and involve lady school teachers and girls of the primary/middle schools in the village which have relevance to her functions.)


(MSW No.206/75-CD dated 1.1.1976 and No.1-9/76 dated 8.11.1976) 3.3.5 Helper to AWW


1. To cook and serve the food to children and mothers.


2. To clean the anganwadi premises daily and fetching water.


3. Cleanliness of small children.


4. To bring small children collecting from the village to the anganwadi.?


8. Para 3.4 provides for honorarium/stipend which has been raised from time to time

and also for anganwadi workers depends on their educational qualifications. The

anganwadi workers are entitled to travelling allowance/daily allowance and can continue to be in employment till 58 years.


9. The writ petition has been opposed by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In the counter

affidavit filed, a preliminary objection was raised that the said Scheme was sponsored by the Central Government through Ministry of Human Resource Department and was being implemented by State Governments/Union Territories. The payment of honorarium for the voluntary efforts put in by the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers negated the requirement of a regular pay scale and they are thus to be paid only honorarium/stipend. An important aspect set out is that no rules as applicable to government servants/daily wage employees are applicable to these categories of persons since they are voluntary part-time workers. Their work is stated to be of community participation in the said Scheme and not as employee and thus cannot be equated with nurses or primary teachers in hospitals/schools. Their names were not sponsored from any employment exchange for employment and their working hours are stated to be four and a half hours, much less than that of a regular employee. The work of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers being of voluntary in nature, there is stated to be no compulsion to serve. The honorarium/stipend is stated to have been revised from time to time for the voluntary part-time work.


10. It is in view of the aforesaid factual matrix that when the matter was initially taken

up for hearing on 06.10.2010 it was observed by learned counsel for the parties that it may be possible to work out an amicable solution if the Government of NCT of Delhi takes a sympathetic view of the matter to suitably revise the emoluments of anganwadi workers. One possible method considered appropriate was to take the wages of a daily wager and work out the proportion which may be payable to an anganwadi worker dependent on the ratio of the working hours of an anganwadi worker to that of a daily wager and working out the same, the rest period given to the daily wager would be excluded and only the actual working time be taken into consideration. This would be apart from other benefits which are already extended to anganwadi workers and may not be available to a daily wager like maternity leave, etc. The counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi took some time to obtain instructions. It was noticed that though the said Scheme was of Union of India, part of the funds were made available by Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi was thus asked to examine the aforesaid issue keeping in mind only the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers in Delhi and as to what further monetary assistance could be provided to them. In the next effective proceedings on 19.11.2010, learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed that the anganwadi workers were being paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month for working four and a half hours while the minimum wages for daily wagers were Rs.5,400/- approximately per month for eight hours. Angangwadi workers were entitled to 20 days leave in a year, maternity leave of 180 days for those having less than two surviving children subject to completion of one year service and 45 days paid absence on abortion or miscarriage. These facilities of maternity leave, 20 days leave in a year, were benefits which were not even available to daily wagers. Learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi expressed an apprehension that the directions of the Court may be construed as if the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 applies. We allayed the apprehension because it was only a methodology to work out the calculation. We were also informed that the question of further enhancement of wages of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers was being examined by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi since revised wages of an anganwadi worker as on 01.04.2008 were Rs.2,500/- per month which was slightly less than 50 per cent of the minimum wages being paid to a daily wager, who work for twice the period of time. We expressed hope that even if that be so, a revision of the figure could take place keeping in mind the cost of living between 2008-2010. The anganwadi helpers were, however, being paid only Rs.1,250/- per month and we expressed hope that a little more magnanimity would be shown by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi keeping in mind that the said Scheme was a welfare scheme.


11. In pursuance to the repeated wishes of the Court for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to examine the matter, the issue was ultimately placed before the Cabinet and we were informed on 01.04.2011 that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi had taken a decision to revise the emoluments of anganwadi workers in pursuance to various requests made through our orders. We expressed the hope of a sympathetic view from the Government despite the legal plea sought to be advanced by the respondents that there was a judgment against the relief claimed of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.; (2007) 11 SCC 681. We accepted the aforesaid to resolve the controversy, but surprisingly on 01.04.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner stated, despite a favourable decision taken by the Government of NCT of Delhi in March, 2011, that he would have to obtain necessary instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents made it clear that if the aforesaid decision was not acceptable to the petitioner and they want to invite a judgment on merits then the respondents may not be interested in implementation of the revised emoluments. A meeting of the petitioner is stated to have been held on 15.04.2011 where it was resolved that the relief should be pressed as set out in the writ petition and that the increase of honorarium from time to time was not the subject matter of the writ petition. This was so despite various proceedings held before the Court where in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, this Court made endeavours to see a better honorarium for the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers.


12. The result is that the petitioner having been the beneficiary of the directions and observations of the Court, now want to go back to their original relief. So be it.


13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the petitioner was being discriminated against as seven different categories of persons deployed under the said Scheme were in the regular pay scale. It was stated that as of now, there were 14 categories of employees and only anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers were being paid honorarium/stipend. These anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are stated to be subjected to appointment and selection with fixed duty hours and have to be given other benefits. The work carried out by the anganwadi workers is stated to be of skilled nature and they cannot be paid merely honorarium which is stated to have been banned under a notification dated 20.06.1951.


14. This circular was not placed on record, but produced before us during the proceedings. The circular is in the form of an OM dated 20.06.1951 dealing with employment of honorary workers in civil posts. It has been observed in the OM that the services of an honorary worker should be utilized only in an advisory capacity and not against civil post. Learned counsel submitted that these two category of persons should be entitled to minimum wages and regularization of services as they were appointed as per standards set by the authorities.


15. Learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi has opposed the petition and submits

that in deference to the observations of this Court that the decision was taken in

March, 2011 in terms whereof the honorarium of an anganwadi worker has been enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month while the honorarium for an anganwadi helper has been enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month. The distribution of the funding is stated to be as under:


IN CASE OF ANGANWADI WORKERS:-


Govt. of India Fund Delhi Govt. State Fund


Present rate of honorarium Rs.2,500/- Rs.1350/- Rs.1150/-


Enhanced rate of honorarium Rs.1,500/- Rs.1350/- Rs.150/-


Total amount of honorarium per month per anganwadi worker after enhancement Rs.4,000/- Rs.2,700/- Rs.1,300/-


IN CASE OF ANGANWADI HELPERS :-


Govt. of India Fund Delhi Govt. State Fund


Present rate of honorarium Rs.1,250/- Rs.675/- Rs.575/-


Enhanced rate of honorarium Rs.750/- Rs.675/- Rs.75/-


Total amount of honorarium per month per anganwadi helper after enhancement Rs.2,000/- Rs.1,350/- Rs.650/-


16. We may notice at this stage that the judgment relied upon by the respondents in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.‟s case (supra) deals with anganwadi workers appointed under the said Scheme and the maintainability of an application filed by the workers under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was held in the said case that the post of such workers was not a statutory post and their recruitment process was not governed by the Constitution or any statute and thus the application was not maintainable. It was specifically held that ICDS Programme would neither constitute an ?industry? nor anganwadi workers ?industrial workmen?. The post of anganwadi workers was not a statutory post and had been created in terms of the said Scheme, but it was one thing to say that there existed a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers, but it was another thing to say that they were holders of a civil post. This was so observed while simultaneously noticing that the Court was not oblivious of the fact that their presence in their respective villages is extremely important and they make significant contribution to the society. It would be useful to reproduce some of the observations made by the Supreme Court in para nos.29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 39, which are as under:


?29. However, rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are not attracted in the case of the respondents. They are appointed under a scheme which is not of a permanent nature, although might have continued for a long time.


30. Appointments made under a scheme and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, in our opinion, would not render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. Our attention has not been drawn to any rule or regulation governing the mode of their recruitment. Some statements in this behalf have been made by the interveners but for the reasons stated hereinbefore, we cannot enter thereinto. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Central Government or the State Governments in exercise of their power under Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution of India or under a statute vis--vis cases of this nature which are sui generis. Terms and conditions of services of an employee may be referable to Acts of appropriate legislature. The matter may also come within the purview of Article


309 of the Constitution of India as proviso appended thereto confers power upon the President or the Governor of a State or other authority, who may be delegated with such power, to make rules during the interregnum.


32. One of the questions which was raised before us was in regard to the right of an anganwadi worker to contest an election. They are indisputably free to do so. A holder of a civil post may not be entitled thereto.


33. In Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev; AIR 1992 SC 1959, this Court while considering the provisions of Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution of India in relation to the posts held by the employees of an Integrated Tribal Development Agency opined that their employees would not be holder of an office of profit although the State exercises control thereover holding: (SCC pp. 427-28, para 28) ?28. It is also necessary to bear in mind that the Government is undertaking several projects and activities including commercial activities through the corporations and local bodies exercising some control over such corporations or bodies. In that view of the matter they may come within the meaning of the ?State‟ envisaged in Article 12 but that may not be a decisive factor in deciding the issue. As a matter of fact, Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act as well as Article 58(2) of the Constitution of India do indicate that all persons employed in such undertakings, corporations or local bodies cannot be deemed to suffer disqualification for contesting the elections except to the extent indicated therein. This aspect also has been considered in some of the abovementioned decisions. If a strict and narrow construction is to be applied that amounts to shutting off many prominent and other eligible persons to contest the elections which forms the fundamental basis for the democratic set-up. Therefore several factors as indicated above depending upon the facts of each case have to be taken into consideration in deciding whether a particular person is disqualified by virtue of his holding an office of profit before concluding that such an office is under the Government.?


34. The decision, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that those employees who come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are not necessarily government servants. A fortiori the State in terms of a scheme may exercise control over a section of the persons working but thereby only, they do not become entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.


35. Reference to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, in our opinion, is also not apposite. The said Act is applicable to the workmen working in the industries specified therein. It is not the case of the respondents that the ICDS Programme would constitute an ?industry? or anganwadi workers are industrial workmen. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that it is one thing to say that the State would be liable to pay minimum wages irrespective of its financial constraints but it is another thing to say that as to whether such a claim can be raised in respect of those who are working under a project. It is not a case where the concept of minimum wage, living wage or fair wage can be brought in service.


36. Different tests applied even for determining the relationship of employer and employee have recently been noticed by this Court in District Rehabilitation Officer v. Jay Kishore Maity; 2006 (11) SCALE 545. In that case, in almost similar project, the employees appointed by the District Rehabilitation Centre claimed themselves to be the Central Government employees. Each case, therefore, has to be considered on its own merits.


37. This Court cannot determine a lis only on sympathy.


39. It is also not a case where the doctrine of parity of employment can be invoked. It

is true that nomenclature of a term of payment is not decisive but the substance is as was held in Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India & Ors.; (2006) 5 SCC 266, but the question has to be determined having regard to the issue involved. We are concerned herein with only one question viz. whether the respondents are holders of any civil post. We are, having regard to the materials on record, of the view that they are not.?


17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to distinguish the judgment by submitting that in para 39, the Supreme Court, which had noticed that they were concerned only with one question i.e. whether the anganwadi workers were holders of any civil post, decided only that issue that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.


18. On an analysis of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is obvious to us that the judgment in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.‟s case (supra) squarely applies to the case to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers under the said Scheme. It is the deployment of these two categories under the said Scheme which has given rise to the claims made in the present petition as also before the Administrative Tribunal against which the judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court.


19. We have quoted the observations of the Supreme Court at some length only to emphasize that the very controversy sought to be raised in the present petition is the one which was dealt with by the Supreme Court albeit in respect of determining the issue whether the application filed by the anganwadi workers before the Administrative Tribunal could be maintained. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before us, the real defence is that there was no civil post for which recruitment took place in accordance with rules qua anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers who were part-time workers/helpers and were thus paid honorarium/stipend. The Supreme Court has held that the anganwadi workers are not holding any statutory post though a relationship of an employer and employee exists. There are no recruitment rules applicable nor is the State required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equity as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for purposes of appointment within the constitutional scheme existed. The appointment process of these workers was held in para 30 not to render incumbents thereof as holders of civil post. In this behalf, an example given is of the entitlement of an anganwadi worker to contest an election which an holder of a civil post may not be entitled to. The Supreme Court relied upon the observations in Satrucharla Chandrasekhar Raju v. Vyricherla Pradeep Kumar Dev; (1992) 4 SCC 404 to observe that the employees who come within the meaning of Article 12 to the Constitution of India are not necessarily government servants. Even the reference to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been held not apposite as the same applies to workmen working in the industries specified therein. The said Scheme would not constitute an ?industry? nor the anganwadi workers as ?industrial workmen?. Thus, we have not the slightest of doubt that the judgment in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.‟s case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case, dis-entitling the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers to any relief.


20. We may notice at this stage that in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Umadevi & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 1806, it has been held that it would not be just and proper to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to permit the persons engaged to be regularized, based on the long period of their service or engagement as it would be perpetuating illegality. Even in matters of regularization of service, it has been observed that the Court must be careful to ensure that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandate. That was a case where the respondents before the Supreme Court claimed regularization of service and equal salary and other allowances as being paid to other employees on

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

a regular basis. It was held that unless the appointment was in terms of the relevant rules, the same could not confer any right on the appointees. 21. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the employment of anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers is in terms of the said Scheme. Their terms and conditions are to be governed by the said Scheme. The Government of India in its wisdom has created different categories of employees under the said Scheme. The employees, who are to work regularly, are put in a regular scale, but anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers are required to give part-time assistance. No doubt, on being deployed, the basic training has to be provided to them, but that itself would not confer any right to get a civil post. Not only that, a person can be employed without appropriate educational qualification and initially honorarium used to vary based on such educational qualification. The working hours are also different even from a daily wager. Thus, the modes of providing honorarium/stipend to the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers cannot be faulted. 22. We, in no manner, want to discount the great assistance provided by such anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers to the system. No doubt, they are crucial to the system providing the ground level interaction. The moot point, however, remains that neither was any civil post created for their benefit nor are they recruited through any recruitment rules to give them the constitutional protection which is available to persons recruited through such a process. 23. It is also not in dispute that benefits have been extended to anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers which are not even available to daily wagers like maternity leave, 20 days leave in a year, etc. 24. We also find some merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner wanted assistance of this Court to ensure that the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers get better remuneration with which this Court was in agreement, having availed of that benefit, now seek to wriggle out of the basic reason why these observations were made by this Court i.e. the impediment of legal direction which can be issued by this Court on account of the judgment in State of Karnataka and Ors.v. Ameerbi and Ors.‟s case (supra). It was on the humanitarian grounds that we felt that the matter must be looked at sympathetically by the Government itself which has translated into some relief for the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers as their emoluments do stand revised from March, 2011. We are also conscious of the plea raised by the learned counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 01.04.2011 that if this decision of revision of honorarium was not acceptable to the petitioner and they want to invite a judgment on merits, the respondents may not be interested in implementation of the revised emoluments. Learned counsel for the petitioner was, however, emphatic that they still want to invite a judgment in view of the collective decision taken by the petitioner-union. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no relief as claimed for by the petitioner can be granted to the anganwadi workers and anganwadi helpers and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
O R