[1] Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman, assisted by Ms. Aradhita Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy S.G.I for the respondent-Union of India and Mr. K. De, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State.

[2] The common question involved in the case of all the petitioners is that they were initially engaged as Anganwadi Workers, and after being satisfied with their services rendered against said engagement, they were ultimately promoted to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted). By the passage of time they went on superannuation on different dates. The dates of their engagement as Anganwadi Workers, the dates of their respective promotions to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted) and also the dates of their superannuation are canvassed in a pictorial chart hereunder:

               

               

[3] Now, it is the common grievance of all the petitioners that 50% of their services rendered as Anganwadi Workers were not taken into account by the State-respondents, and thereby they have been deprived of requisite pensionary benefits, and moreover, the respondents also denied their pensionary benefits on the ground that their promotion to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non-Gazetted) was ad hoc promotion.

[4] All the present fourteen petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 395 of 2024 claiming the following reliefs:

               “I. Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to record service rendered by the Petitioners as Anganwadi Worker before joining as Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non Gazetted), in the Service Book of the Petitioners.

               II. Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to send pension proposal of the Petitioners to the AG (A & E), Tripura after retirement of the Petitioner from service on superannuation on the basis of 50% service as Anganwadi Worker and regular service as Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non Gazetted).

               III. Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to determine the Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other pensionary benefits on retirement of the Petitioners on the basis of the 50% of service rendered by the Petitioners as Anganwadi Workers and regular service in the posts of Supervisors, ICDS(Group-C, Non Gazetted).

               IV. Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to modify the Notification, dated, 02.06.2023, issued by the Director, Social Welfare and Social Education by deleting the word "on ad-hoc basis".

               V. Make the Rules absolute,

               VI. Call for records…………”

[5] A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.06.2024 disposed of the said writ petition with the observation that some representations made by the petitioners to the respondents departments with regard to such claim, were pending, and therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Court directed the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of their representations as expeditiously as possible.

[6] Thereafter, the Directorate of Social Welfare and Social Education, Government of Tripura, issued an order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-27) whereby the claims of the petitioners were regretted following the notification No.F.3(51-5)-DSWE/ESTT/2022/1260(145), dated 02.06.2023. By the said notification dated 02.06.2023, all the present petitioners were promoted to the post of Supervisor on an ad hoc basis pending the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No.19765-19767 of 2015. As it appears, vide order dated 02.08.2024, the department was of the view that such ad hoc promotion could not be treated as a regular appointments on promotion. Therefore, on that ground, they rejected the claim of the petitioners regarding their claim of post retiral benefits after counting 50% of the period of services rendered as Anganwadi Workers.

[7] Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed with the following reliefs:

               i) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to record service rendered by the Petitioners as Anganwadi Worker before joining as Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non Gazetted), in the Service Book of the Petitioners.

               ii) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to send pension proposal of the Petitioners to the AG (A & E), Tripura after retirement of the Petitioner from service on superannuation on the basis of 50% service as Anganwadi Worker and regular service as Supervisor (ICDS) (Group-C, Non Gazetted).

               iii) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to determine the Gratuity, Leave Encashment and other pensionary benefits on retirement of the Petitioners on the basis of the 50% of service rendered by the Petitioners as Anganwadi Workers and regular service in the posts of Supervisors, ICDS(Group-C, Non Gazetted).

               iv) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondent to modify the Notification, dated, 02.06.2023, issued by the Director, Social Welfare and Social Education by deleting the word "on ad-hoc basis".

               v) Issue rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order or direction shall not be issued whereby quashing and cancelling the Order, dated, 02.08.2024, issued by Director, Social Welfare and Social Education by which the claim of the Petitioners for post retiral benefits have been rejected.

               vi) Make the Rules absolute,

               vii) Call for records………..”

[8] Learned senior counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman, argues that already the State Government vide notification dated 01.12.2025 has specified that such an ad hoc promotion shall be treated as a regular promotion for the purpose of disbursement of pensionary benefits, and moreover, earlier this Court has already decided in similar cases that 50% of the services as Anganwadi Workers should be taken into account.

[9] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Barman, also relies on another memorandum dated 02.11.2017, issued by the Education (Social Welfare & Social Education) Department, Government of Tripura, whereby it was directed that 50% of the total period of service rendered as Anganwadi Worker should be counted as qualifying service while providing pensionary benefits to those Supervisors (ICDS) who would be promoted from the post of Anganwadi Worker. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Barman, therefore prays for passing necessary directions in this regard.

[10] Learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. K. De, however, submits that the claims of the petitioners were turned down by the department as their promotion was an ad hoc promotion. But he has not disputed the fact of the issuance of the subsequent notification dated 01.12.2025 by the State Government as indicated above.

[11] Learned Deputy S.G.I., Mr. Bidyut Majumder, submits that they are formal party in this case, and therefore, necessary order may be passed in accordance with law.

[12] This Court has considered the submissions of both sides. As it appears the present case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court passed in the case of Manju Sarma Bhattacharjee versus the State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No.119 of 2025] decided on 12.01.2026. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are also set out hereunder:

               “[9] Considered the submissions of learned counsel of both sides. It appears that earlier some of the Anganwadi Workers who were promoted to the post of Supervisor, ICDS had approached this Court having similar grievance that they were not provided with the benefit of pension and other post-retiral benefits and this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2017, decided the matter in Case No.WP(C) 71 of 2011 titled as Smt. Sandhya Banik & Ors. vs. The State of Tripura & Ors. along with another writ petition. The said case was disposed of with a direction that the State-respondents would have to process the cases of the petitioners for pensionary benefits after taking into account 50% of their services rendered as Anganwadi Workers, and thereafter to pay the pensionary benefits to them accordingly.

               [10] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman also submits that said judgment was not challenged by the State, rather, they had complied with the same.

[11] Learned senior counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has also placed one notification dated 1st December, 2025, issued by the G.A. (P&T) Department, Govt. of Tripura, whereby it was decided by the State that all promotions allowed as per the promotional policy of 2021 shall be treated as regular promotion with effect from the ad hoc promotion for the purpose of extending all service and retiral benefits as per respective extant rules. The relevant portion of the policy decision of the State Govt. is extracted here-in-below:

               “Whereas, the Promotion Policy, 2021 has been carefully examined by the Government and after due consideration, it has been decided to modify the said Policy as follows: -

               i) All promotions allowed as per the Promotion Policy, 2021 shall be treated as regular promotion with effect from the date of ad-hoc promotion for the purpose of extending all service and retiral benefits as per respective extant rules. Also, the benefits of fixation / protection of pay, allowances, etc. after such treatment, shall be provided to an employee entitled otherwise, subject to the outcome of SLP No. 19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

               ii) All pensionary benefits, including leave encashment, shall also be extended to employees on the last pay of the post from which they have retired / will retire from service on superannuation or otherwise, after availing ad-hoc promotion subject to the outcome of the SLP No. 19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Also, if any employee dies after availing ad-hoc promotion as per the Promotion Policy, 2021, his/her legal heirs shall also be entitled to pensionary benefits, including leave encashment etc. as permissible, subject to the outcome of SLP No. 19765-19767 of 2015 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

               All Departments and Heads of Departments are therefore, requested to take action accordingly.”

[12] In view of above position, the issue raised by the respondents cannot be taken into consideration as the matter of addition of 50% past service of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker has already been decided by this Court in the above said earlier decision, and that has reached the finality and has become binding on the State.

[13] As it appears, already the Govt. has extended the benefit of regular promotion to all the promotees who were promoted on ad hoc basis as per promotional policy of 2021, and it has been directed by the State to all the departments to extend all promotional benefits, including leave encashment to the retired employees or to their legal representatives where those employees are dead meanwhile. Therefore, the issue raised by the respondents that the promotion of the petitioner was an ad hoc promotion, cannot be accepted.

[14] In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The State-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Sandhya Banik (supra), and also the notification issued by the State Govt. on 1st December, 2025 as extracted above, and to take necessary steps for release of post-retiral benefits to the petitioner as per her entitlement in accordance with rules. The entire exercise will be completed within three months from receipt of a copy of this order…”

[13] The memorandum dated 02.11.2017 also shows that earlier several writ petitions were decided by this Court on the issue of counting of 50% of the past services as Anganwadi Workers for the purpose of granting post retiral benefits and finally, in terms of those judgments and orders passed by this Court, the State Government issued said memorandum dated 02.11.2017.

[14] In view of the above position and also the decision of this Court in the case of Manju Sarma Bhattacharjee (supra), the instant writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-27) is set aside. The respondent nos. 01 to 14 are directed to examine and consider the case of the present petitioners in the light of above said decision and other previous decisions of this Court including the case of Smt. Sandhya Banik & others versus the State of Tripura and others [WP(C) No. 71 of 2011] decided on 24.01.2017 and also the notifications issued by the State Government on 02.11.2017 and 01.12.2025 as indicated above and to take necessary steps for the release of post retiral benefits to the petitioners as per their entitlement after counting 50% of their past services as Anganwadi Workers and also taking into note that such an ad hoc promotion should be treated as a regular promotion. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.