UNION OF INDIA Vs. ANJANA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Asstt. S. G., appearing on behalf of Union of India. Also heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for private respondents as well as Mr. D Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State-respondents.

(2.) It is important to take note herein that a batch of cases [WP(C) No.886/2019 and connected petitions] were filed by persons who were working as Angwadi Workers in the State of Tripura relying upon the communication dtd. 22/10/2012 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Women and Child Department wherein the department had annexed detailed guidelines for implementation of the age of retirement which reads as under :

(3.) This batch of cases, out of which the present appeal is one such case, came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court [in WA No.173/2021 and other connected appeals in case of State of Tripura v. Smt. Rina Purkayastha and Ors.] by an order dtd. 29/6/2021 filed by the State of Tripura itself. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Division Bench inter alia holding that since 90% of the funding comes from the Government of India Revenue and the State contributes barely 10% of the expenditure, in such back ground when the Government of India Policy specifically formulated for such purpose provided that all State Governments must formulate the uniform policy of age of retirement which pegs the age of retirement at 65 years, we find no reason why the Government of Tripura, should have taken a different view.