STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus AMEERBI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 07-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
AMEERBI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 309 and 310-Protection under, 
to Anganwadi workers and helpers-Entitlement of-Held: Posts of Anganwadi 
workers are not statuto1y posts but created under a Scheme-They do not C 
carry any function of the State-Appointments and recruitment process is 
carried out through a Committee-Appointment is not of a permanent nature-
Anganwadi workers and helpers are not appointed on pay scale but paid 
honorarium-Thus, are not holders of civil post. 
Central Government floated Integrated Child Development Service D 
Programme and funded it, though its application was in hands of the State 
Government. Anganwadi workers and helpers were appointed from 
amongst the local inhabitants for the projects. Selection was done by 
Committee. Anganwadi workers filed an application before the State 
Administrative Tribunals that they are workers and helpers working 'in 
various Anganwadi and are entitled to be treated as civil servants. E 
Tribunal held the application to be maintainable opining that although 
Anganwadi workers and helpers are paid honorarium, they hold civil post. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Anganwadi workers do not carry on any function of the 
State. The posts of Anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. Their posts 
F 
are not created under the statute. They have been created in terms of the 
scheme. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the 
State are not applicable in their case. No process of selection for the G 
purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme existed. The 
State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality 
as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is one thing 
to say that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A between the State and Anganwadi workers bat it is another thing to say 
that they are holders of civil post. [335-G-H; 336-A) 
B 
1.2. Anganwadi worke~s and helpers were not to be appointed on a 
pay scale. They are to be paid honorarium. There is no fixed criteria as 
regards honorarium. [333-H; 334-A) 
1.3. Anganwadi workers have right to contest an election. A holder 
ofa civil post may not be entitled thereto. [340-F-G) 
1.4. Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution 
are not attracted in the case of the respondents. They are appointed under 
C a scheme on year to year basis. It is not of a permanent nature though it 
might have continued for a long time. Appointments made under a scheme 
and recruitment process being carried out through a committee, would 
not render the incumbents thereof holders of civil post. [340-B-C) 
1.5. A distinction must be made about a post created by the Central 
D Government or the State Governments in exercise of their power under 
Articles 77 or 162 of the Constitution or under a statute vis-a-vis cases of 
this nature who 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 
E 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. [340-C-E) 
1.6. Reference to the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, is not 
apposite. The said Act is applicable to the workmen working in the 
F 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 
G 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. [341-F-H] 
1. 7. The doctrine of parity of employment cannot be invoked. It is true 
that nomenclature of a term of payment is not decisive but the substance, but 
H the question has to be determined having regard to the issue involved. With 
STA TE OF KARNATAKA v. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.