Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 11.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 9 January, 2026
2026:HHC:3282-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No: 18 of 2017
Reserved on: 11.07.2025
Announced on: 09.01.2026
__________________________________________________________
.
Madhu Tomar
...Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others
...Respondents
Coram:
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes.
rt For the appellant:
For the respondents:
Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2.-State. Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3-UOI.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge Appellant, Madhu Tomar, has come up before this Court assailing the judgement dated
02.12.2016 [referred to as Impugned Judgment] passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1172 of 2012, In re: Madhu Tomar versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another, dismissing the claim in the writ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS-2- 2026:HHC:3282-DB petition for directing the State Authorities to frame a Policy for counting the service rendered as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 towards .
regular service rendered till superannuation on 29.02.2012 for pension; with the prayer to set-aside the Impugned Judgement and to grant the benefit of pension to the appellant.
of FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT:
2. Appellant herein being the petitioner, in rt CWP No 1172 of 2012, filed the writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-
(i). For issuing a writ of Mandamus to the respondents for considering the issue raised in the writ petition in a time bound schedule and to frame a policy w.r.t clubbing long service rendered by Anganwadi Workers with the service on their appointments as Supervisors for the purposes of pension.
(ii). For directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner after counting her service as Anganwadi Worker and by clubbing it with her service as Supervisor for the purpose of grant of pension w.e.f. from her date of superannuation alongwith interest.
2(i). Appellant-petitioner had set up a case before the writ Court that she was a Matriculate and was ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-3- 2026:HHC:3282-DB appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Chandni w.e.f. 21.10.1982 and worked as such till 30.08.2005. It is averred that consequent upon the .
selection process initiated by the State Authorities for the post of Anganwari Supervisor, the petitioner-
appellant appeared in written test on 19.01.2003 and was called for Interview on 3.6.2005 and upon of due selection, she was appointed as a Supervisor [ICDS] through Limited Direct Recruitment by the rt Respondents on 30.08.2005 and she joined her regular appointment as Supervisor [ICDS] on 31.08.2005 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 [Annexure P-4]. It is averred that she submitted a representation to the State Authorities on 20.01.2012 [Annexure P-5] stating therein that the petitioner had rendered service as Anganwari Worker for more than 22 years and 10 months and had rendered service as Supervisor [ICDS] for 6 years and 6 months and therefore, entire period may be counted for pension. Petitioner-
appellant superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years on 29.02.2012. It is in this backdrop, ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-4- 2026:HHC:3282-DB petition was filed claiming a direction to the State Authorities to frame a a Policy for counting the service rendered as Anganwari Worker towards regular service .
as Supervisor [ICDS] and thereafter to grant the pension to the petitioner.
STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WRIT COURT:
2(ii). The Appellants-State Authorities filed a of Reply-Affidavit dated 03.04.2012, of Director, Women and Child Development, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.
2(iii).
rt Stand of the State Authorities in the Reply-Affidavit was that the writ petition was not maintainable. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the service rendered by the petitioner-appellant as Anganwari Worker under [Integrated Child Development Services] ICDS Scheme for 22 years and 10 months was in the capacity of an honorary employee under the ICDS Scheme from 21.10.1982 to 30.08.2005 and thereafter the petitioner stood appointed as ICDS Supervisor on regular basis where she served from 31.08.2005 till her superannuation on 29.02.2012 for six years and six months.::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-5- 2026:HHC:3282-DB
2(iv). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that once
the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor [ICDS] on regular basis on 31.08.2005, therefore, the .
petitioner was governed by the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 applicable w.e.f. 15.05.2003 [Annexure R-1] and not by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Reply-Affidavit of further indicates that there is no scheme or policy providing for clubbing of service rendered as rt Anganwari Worker on honorary basis with service rendered as Supervisor. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2012 [Annexure P-5] was rejected by the State on 21.03.2012 [Annexure R-2]. In this background, the prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition.
REBUTTAL BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:
2(v). Petitioner-appellant herein, filed a rejoinder stating therein that the State Authorities have counted the contractual service followed by regular service as qualifying service for pension, in case of Joga Singh and others versus State of Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-6- 2026:HHC:3282-DB Pradesh [CWP No. 8953 of 2013 decided on 15.06.2015] and the judgement in the case of Veena Devi versus Himachal Pradesh State .
Electricity Board [CWP No. 5400 of 2014, decided on 21.11.2014] therefore, prayer for pension was reiterated.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2016 BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
of 2(vi). The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge on rt 02.12.2016 with the findings that the appointment of the petitioner was under the ICDS Scheme;
and anganwari workers were not holder of Civil Post and even as per Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the petitioner was not entitled for pension as the service rendered as Anganwari Worker was not in a substantiative capacity; and was not in a pensionable establishment and said service did not qualify for pension in view of the fact that the service rendered as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 was a service under ICDS Scheme which did not qualify for pension.
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS -7- 2026:HHC:3282-DB
In these circumstances, the claim of petitioner
for pension was dismissed by Learned Single Judge.
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2016 IN INSTANT APPEAL:
.
2(vii). Writ petitioner-Madhu Tomar, being the appellant assailed the Impugned Judgement dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Learned Single Judge primarily on three grounds; firstly, Learned Single of Judge failed to issue a direction to the State Authorities to frame a scheme for counting service rt rendered as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 towards the service rendered as Supervisor ICDS on regular basis from 31.08.2005 till superannuation on 29.02.2012 for pension; secondly, Learned Single Judge erred in denying the benefit of pension to the petitioner in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules and thirdly, Learned Single Judge had erred in not extending the benefit of pension by taking into account the judgements passed by various Courts from time to time in Joga Singh, Veena Devi, Sandhya Banik Jashna Begum, Sheela Devi, Mamata Rani Roy, Sunder Singh and Maniben Maganhhai ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-8- 2026:HHC:3282-DB Bhariya which has resulted in depriving the appellant-petitioner of the pension from the date of superannuation on 29.02.2012 with attendant .
benefits.
ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT IN INTRA COURT PROCEEDINGS:
2(viii). Pursuant to directions passed by Division Bench in Intra-Court Appeal on 21.03.2024, State of Authorities have filed an Affidavit on 08.05.2024 whereby the State Authorities have specifically stated rt that the anganwari workers do not hold statutory post and anganwari workers were appointed under ICDS Scheme and were honorary workers only and anganwari workers are neither substantive employees nor do they hold any civil post under the State Government. It was further averred that anganwari workers are not "government servant(s)" and service rendered by the appellant as anganwari worker is at variance with the service rendered as a Supervisor [ICDS] on regular basis from 31.08.2005 till superannuation on 29.02.2012.
INSTRUCTIONS DATED 12.06.2024 AND 19.11.2024 FURNISHED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 UNION OF INDIA:::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
-9- 2026:HHC:3282-DB
2(ix). During pendency of the instant appeal,
Union of India was impleaded as party respondent in the instant proceedings.
.
2(ix-a). Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the Union of India furnished the Instructions dated 12.06.2024 and 19.11.2024 indicating that the anganwari workers and anganwari helpers are of honorary workers of local community engaged at local level. Instructions further indicate that they rt were appointed under the ICDS Scheme.
2(ix-b). Based on the Instructions Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India asserts that after coming into force of National Food Security Act, 2013 the Anganwari Workers were recognized to be holders of civil post and by virtue of recognition granted by said Act, they have been performing multifarious functions but since the petitioner stood retired on 29.02.2012 prior to enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013, therefore, the statutory recognition imparted to anganwari workers by virtue of the National Food Security Act, 2013 are not applicable ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 10 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB to the appellant-writ petitioner herein and therefore, a prayer was made for dismissal of the instant appeal.
.
3. Heard, Ms. Shalini Thakur, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Balram Sharma, Learned Deputy Solicitor General of of India assisted by Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the Union of India.
rt ANALYSIS:
4. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record in Writ File and Intra Court Appeal, this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Judgement dated 02.12.2016, dismissing the claim for pension, does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality, for the following reasons:-
4(i). First contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the Learned Single Judge erred in not giving a direction to the State Authorities to frame a policy for counting of the Anganwari Worker service rendered from 21.10.1982 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 11 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB till 30.08.2005 towards the regular service rendered as Supervisor from 31.08.2005 till superannuation on 29.02.2012 by ignoring and obliterating the .
service rendered as anganwari worker for pension is erroneous.
The above contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, is misconceived, for the of reason that as per the Constitution of India three branches i.e. Executive, Legislature and Judiciary rt have been assigned defined roles and functions.
The Constitutional and institutional legitimacy has been assigned to each branch of the three wings and various checks and balances have been incorporated to ensure that particular branch functions within its demarcated arena. Article 245 of the Constitution of India empowers the "Parliament and the State Legislatures to enact laws" for the whole or a part of the territory of India after due debate and discussion in the Parliament and the State Assembly. By virtue of Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution the "Central Executive and State Executive" have been ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 12 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB empowered to make laws by way of subordinate or delegated legislation under proviso to Article 309 in cases, where no legislation, has been enacted .
and the Executive has the power to frame policy, scheme, etc. which is co-extensive with the power to make laws. Likewise, under the doctrine of separation of powers, the "judiciary" has a definite of role to play. The judiciary acts as an interpreter, guardian and protector of the Constitution. Judiciary rt perform's such functions by checks and curbs by resorting to judicial review.
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
4(ii). Power of judicial review is exercised to oversee that the other organs, i.e. Legislature and Executive do not over step their constitutional limit or violate the basic structure of the Constitution or infringe fundamental rights or act contrary to law. While exercising the powers of judicial review, the Courts cannot direct, advise or sermonize others.
The functions to be performed by the executive can neither be encroached upon by the Courts in exercise of judicial review nor Courts can transgress the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 13 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB constitutional limitations or statutory conditions which are mandated or are prescribed by other wings i.e. Legislature or the Executive, as the case .
may be. The Court can only interfere, if the policy framed, is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Article 14 of the Constitution.
of COURTS CANNOT DIRECT FRAMING OF POLICY:
4(iii). While dealing with the issue as to rt whether the Courts can embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be framed has been negated, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Union of India and others versus M. Selvakumar and another, (2017) 3 SCC 504, in the following terms:
47. There is one more reason due to which we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court. The horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination, is a matter of Governmental policy and the Government after considering the relevant materials have extended relaxation and concessions to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 14 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category as well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and .
acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious and non- informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Article 14 of the Constitution.
of 4(iv). While dealing with the limits of judicial review, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani rt Kumar versus Union of India and another, (2020) 13 SCC 585, has mandated that the Court cannot direct or advice or sermonize other wings who are vested with the right to legislature. Courts cannot encroach upon the rights of the Executive who is vested with the discretion to formulate a policy after taking into account its requirements;
including merits and demerits of the policy and other factors, in the following terms:-
13. The most significant impact of the doctrine of separation of powers is seen and felt in terms of the institutional independence of the judiciary from other organs of the State. Judiciary, in terms of personnel, the Judges, is ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 15 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB independent. Judges unlike members of the legislature represent no one, strictly speaking not even the citizens.
Judges are not accountable and answerable as the political executive is to the legislature and the elected .
representatives are to the electorate.
This independence ensures that the judges perform the constitutional function of safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution while exercising the power of judicial review in a fair and even-handed manner without pressure and favours. As an interpreter, of guardian and protector of the Constitution, the judiciary checks and curbs violation of the Constitution by the Government when they overstep rt their constitutional limits, violate the basic structure of the Constitution, infringe fundamental rights or act contrary to law. Power of judicial review has expanded taking within its ambit the concept of social and economic justice. Yet, while exercising this power of judicial review, the courts do not encroach upon the field marked by the Constitution for the legislature and the executive, as the courts examine legality and validity of the legislation or the governmental action, and not the wisdom behind the legislative measure or relative merits or demerits of the governmental action. Neither does the Constitution permit the courts to direct, advise or sermonise others in the spheres reserved for them by the Constitution, provided the legislature or the executive do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory conditions. Referring to the phrase "all power is of ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 16 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB an encroaching nature", which the judiciary checks while exercising the power of judicial review, it has been observed that the judiciary must be on guard against encroaching beyond its bounds since the only restraint upon it .
is the self-imposed discipline of self-
restraint. Independence and adherence to constitutional accountability and limits while exercising the power of judicial review gives constitutional legitimacy to the court decisions. This is essence of the power and function of judicial review that strengthens and of promotes the rule of law.
14. Constitutional Bench judgments in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati rt Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, State of Rajasthan and Others v. Union of India and Others, I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu and State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala have uniformly ruled that the doctrine of separation of powers, though not specifically engrafted, is constitutionally entrenched and forms part of the basic structure as its sweep, operation and visibility are apparent.
Constitution has made demarcation, without drawing formal lines, amongst the three organs with the duty of the judiciary to scrutinise the limits and whether or not the limits have been transgressed. These judgments refer to the constitutional scheme incorporating checks and balances. As a sequitur, the doctrine restrains the legislature from declaring the judgment of a court to be void and of no effect, while the legislature still possesses the legislative competence of enacting a validating law which remedies the defect pointed out in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 17 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB judgment. However, this does not ordain and permit the legislature to declare a judgment as invalid by enacting a law, but permits the legislature to take away the basis of the judgment by fundamentally altering the .
basis on which it was pronounced.
Therefore, while exercising all important checks and balances function, each wing should be conscious of the enormous responsibility that rests on them to ensure that institutional respect and comity is maintained.
of 4(v). While negating the plea of workers for directing the authorities to formulate a regularization rt policy the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Union of India and others versus Ilmo Devi and another (2021) 20 SCC 290, in the following terms:-
14. Even the regularization policy to regularize the services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so. In the case of R.S. Bhonde and Ors. (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the status of permanency cannot be granted when there is no post. It is further observed that mere continuance every year of seasonal work during the period when work was available does not constitute a ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 18 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB permanent status unless there exists a post and regularization is done.
15. In the case of Daya Lal & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under:-
.
"12. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals:
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the of Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the rt employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) ..... not relevant.....
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 19 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to .
claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
4(vi). While dealing with an issue as to whether of the Courts can issue a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner, when the policy formulation rt lies within the realm of the executive, was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rachna and others versus Union of India and another (2021) 5 SCC 638, in the following terms:
45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate.
The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 20 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB it is called for. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by .
the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for the reason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be an of impediment for the participant in the Civil Service Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the rt petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.
4(vii). Negating the directions passed for framing a policy within a time frame the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus K. Pushpavanam and others, (2023) 20 SCC 736, has held in the following terms:
8. As far as the law of torts and liability thereunder of the State is concerned, the law regarding the liability of the State and individuals has been gradually evolved by Courts. Some aspects of it find place in statutes already in force. It is a debatable issue whether the law of torts and especially liabilities under the law of torts should ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 21 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB be codified by a legislation. A writ court cannot direct the Government to consider introducing a particular bill before the House of Legislature within a time frame. Therefore, the first direction issued under the .
impugned judgment was unwarranted.
8. As regards the 2nd direction, it must be remembered that when a litigant seeks a writ of mandamus, he must show a right existing in his favour and the corresponding obligation of the State to ensure that the litigant of is able to exercise the said right. There is no right vested in the applicant to claim that the Law Commission set up by the Central Government should rt be given constitutional or statutory status. 21 Law Commissions have already functioned and submitted reports. Whether Law Commission should be given a status under the Constitution or under a Statute is a major policy decision to be taken by the Central Government. It is only the Central Government which can take a call on this issue. Therefore, the 2nd direction was uncalled for.
12. The law regarding power of the writ court to issue a mandate to the legislature to legislate is well settled.
No Constitutional Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature to enact a law on a particular subject in a particular manner. The Court may, at the highest, record its opinion or recommendation on the necessity of either amending the existing law or coming out with a new law. The law has been laid down in this behalf in several decisions including a ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 22 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB decision of this Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India & Anr. and State of Jammu and Kashmir v. A.R. Zakki and others The only exception is where the Court finds .
that unless a rule making power is exercised, the legislation cannot be effectively implemented.
4(viii) Directions to formulate a policy cannot be issued by the Courts in terms of the mandate of of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Union of India and others versus Air Commodore N.K.Sharma, rt 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1673, in the following terms:
20. The above being the settled position of law, it only stands to reason that a Tribunal functioning within the strict boundaries of the governing legislation, would not have the power to direct the formation of a policy.
After all, a court in Writ jurisdiction is often faced with situations that allegedly fly in the face of fundamental rights, and yet, has not been entrusted with the power to direct such formation of policy.
Taking into account, the broad principles mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M. Selvakumar, Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Ilmo Devi, Rachna, K. Pushpavanam and N.K.Sharma, [supra] this Court, has no hesitation to hold, that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 23 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant in submitting that the State Authorities be directed to formulate a policy cannot sustain, .
for the reason, that the policy formulation lies within the exclusive domain of the State Authorities.
It is for the State Authorities to decide as to how, when and in what manner a policy is to be framed of after examining all the pros and cons including merits and demerits. No direction can be passed rt by statutory forum/writ Court directing the State Authorities to formulate a policy in a specific manner. Plea of the appellant seeking a direction to the State Authorities to frame a policy to count the service rendered as anganwari worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 towards regular service rendered as Supervisor till superannuation on 29.02.2012 for pension certainly lies within the domain of the State Authorities. Once there is neither the infringement of any fundamental right nor any legal right of the appellant, therefore, this Court upholds the Impugned Judgement and refrains from issuing any directions either to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 24 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Union of India or the State Authorities to formulate any such policy, as prayed for, by the appellant-
petitioner, in the instant proceedings.
.
5. Second contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that Learned Single Judge had erred in not extending the benefit of pension by counting the service rendered as Anganwari of Worker towards the service rendered as Supervisor.
5(i). For appreciating the contention of the rt Learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is necessary to have a recap of the Rule 2(h) of the Classification, Control and Appeal [Rules], 1965, as applicable in the following terms:
2(h) Government servant means a person who -
(i) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under the Union, and includes any such person on foreign service or whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of a State Government, or a local or other authority;
ii) is a member of a Service or holds a civil post under a State Government and whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government;
iii) is in the service of a local or other authority and whose services are ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 25 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government;
PETITIONER NOT GOVERNMENT SERVANT:
5(ii). Perusal of Rule 2(h) of the CCS .
[Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 defines the term 'Government Servant', which covers those incumbents who are appointed to Civil Post or are members of a service either of under the Central Government or the State Government. rt Only those incumbents, who are termed as Government Servant have a right to assert a claim for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules.
5(iii). A perusal of the Anganwari Worker Scheme for which this Court take a judicial notice of guidelines [as provided by Learned State Counsel], reveals that the Anganwari Workers are appointed under the [Integrated Child Development Services] Scheme. Based on ICDS Scheme notified by the Central Government, the State Authorities have issued guidelines whereunder, the appellant was appointed as an anganwari worker in ICDS Scheme and she was neither the holder of a civil post nor ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 26 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB a member of a service under the Central or State Government(s). The appellant-writ petitioner does not fulfill the pre-conditions so as to logically .
conclude that the appellant was a Government servant and therefore, the claim of the appellant-
writ petitioner for pension was validly negated, by Learned Single Judge.
of 5(iv). Factum that the appellant-writ petitioner was neither the holder of civil post nor member of service rt is borne out from the perusal of the [Integrated Child Development Services] Scheme which was launched in 1975 wherein operational details and the staffing pattern at the project level was inscribed. An anganwari worker did not hold any post under any statute. Their posts were created specifically for the Scheme-Project. Even the recruitment rules which ordinarily applies to the State are not applicable in their case. While making the appointment as Anganwari Worker and Helpers, the State is not required to comply with the Constitutional ethos of equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 27 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB no process of selection for the purpose of appointment as Anganwari Worker existed as per the Constitutional Scheme. The appointment .
of Anganwari Workers are made under a scheme and the recruitment process is carried out by a Committee at the local level which will not render the incumbents to be holder of civil post. Only of statutory post holders can be considered to be holders of civil post or members of service, who rt enjoy the constitutional protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Even as per State Guidelines the anganwari workers are honorary workers who do not have any right for regularization or absorption. Even under ICDS Scheme the State Authorities is not liable to pay minimum wages to such incumbents. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others versus Ameerbi and others, (2007) 11 SCC 681, mandates that the Anganwari Workers were appointed under ICDS Scheme from local inhabitants without being holders of statutory posts or service under the State and do not enjoy the Constitutional ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 28 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, in the following terms:
9. The Scheme was floated by the Central Government with certain .
objects. The staff pattern at the project level has been laid down in the Scheme itself. What would be meant by sanctioned post is evident from paragraph 3.1.18 of the Scheme as noticed hereinbefore. Indisputably Anganwadi workers and helpers were not to be appointed on a pay scale. They are to be paid honorarium.
of The amount of honorarium has since been increased and just at present is as under:
rt Anganwari Workers:
Qualification/ 1975- 1.4.1978 1.7.1996 2.10.1992 16.5.1997 1.4.2002
Experience 1976
Non- 100 125 225 350 438 938
matriculate
Matriculate 150 175 275 400 500 1000
Non- - - 250 375 469 969
matriculate
with five
years
experience
Matriculate - - 300 425 531 1031
with five
years
experience
Non- - - 275 400 500 1000
Matriculate
with 10 years
experience
Matriculate - - 325 450 563 1063
with 10 years
experience
Anganwarid helpers :
Helpers. 35 50 110 200 260 500
10. The Scheme is on a year to year basis. The Scheme although is to be directly under the control of the State ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 29 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Governments, the financial burden is to be borne by the Central Government.
13. The posts of Anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a .
relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and Anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil post.
20. Anganwadi workers, however, do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under of a statute. Their posts are not created. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their rt case. The State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 30 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB 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-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 proviso of 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 rt rules during the interregnum.
34. 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.
38. 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 and ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 31 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Others [(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 they are not.
Based on the features of the [Integrated Child Development Services] Scheme, the appellant-
writ petitioner, who was appointed as an Anganwari of Worker in Anganwari Centre Chandni from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005, against posts created under ICDS rt Scheme do not come within the ambit of "Government Servant" and are not holders of civil post nor are they part of any service under the Central or State Government but were the employees of the ICDS Project-Scheme recruited on local basis without comprehensively complying with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 to whom protection of Article 311 is not available and even they have no right for regularization or absorption and they are not governed by the Minimum Wages Act. These factors further negate the claim and disentitle the appellant-writ petitioner for pension and therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 32 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB the Impugned Judgement passed by Learned Single Judge, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
.
INELIGIBILITY FOR PENSION UNDER RULE 2, 13 AND 14 OF THE CCS (PENSION) RULES, 1972:
5(v). Now, we proceed to examine the eligibility and entitlement for pension in the light of Rules of 2, 13 and 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended by State of Himachal Pradesh on 15.05.2003, as under:
rt
2. Application.
Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to the Government servants appointed on or before 15th day of May, 2003, including civilian Government servants in the Defence Services, appointed substantively to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to,
(a) railway servants ;
(b) persons in casual and daily rated employment ;
(c) persons paid from contingencies ;
(d) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund ;
(e) members of the All India
Services;
(f) persons locally recruited for
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 33 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB
service in diplomatic, consular or other Indian establishments in foreign countries ;
(g) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise ; and .
(h) persons whose terms and
conditions of service are
regulated by or under the
provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
(i) All appointments made in the of State Government of Himachal Pradesh on or after the date of the publication of the rt notification in Rajpatra, Himachal Pradesh.
13. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity :
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post :
Provided further that
(a). in the case of a Government servant in a Group `D' service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose, and ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 34 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB
(b). in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity.
(c). the provisions of clause (b) shall .
not be applicable in the cases of counting of military service for civil pension under Rule 19.
14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies (1) The service of a Government servant of shall not qualify, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions rt determined by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression "Service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government does not include service but in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government.
Based on the provision of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended on 15.05.2003 for the State of Himachal Pradesh, the appellant is not entitled for pension, for the reason, firstly, the admissibility of pension is available to a "Government Servant"; and secondly, the claim for pension accrues to a person who is substantively ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 35 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB appointed by the Government to a "civil post or a post in connection with the affairs of the Union of India or State in a pensionable establishment".
.
In the above backdrop, once the appellant was neither Government Servant nor was she appointed substantively to the civil post or a post in connection with the Union or the Respondent-State, therefore, of the claim for pension, without satisfying the foundational requirement of Rule 2 of the CCS rt (Pension) Rules, cannot sustain and is accordingly negated.
INADMISSIBILITY OF PENSION FOR DAILY- CONTIGENT EMPLOYEES AKIN TO APPELLANT:
5(vi). Perusal of 2 (a) to 2 (h) of the CCS (Pension) Rules indicates that benefit of pension is admissible under the CCS (Pension) Rules, to persons who are not casual or daily rated employee or were paid from contingency or whose conditions are governed by other conditions/service rules notified by the employer.
By virtue of Rule 2(a) to 2(h) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, once casual, daily and ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 36 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB contingency employee are ousted and the appellant-
writ petitioner was admittedly appointed under Integrated Child Development Scheme-Project, on .
honorary basis and the service rendered by them is akin to the service rendered by casual/contingent employees, then, the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for pension was rightly negated, by the of Learned Single Judge.
EMPLOYEES OF A SCHEME HAVE NO RIGHT rt FOR PENSION:
6. While dealing with the claim of casual workers and contract workers, who appointed against the post created exclusively for said Project-
Scheme and who were not appointed on substantive basis and were employees of a Scheme, the claim for pension was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parmeshwar Nanda and others versus State of Jharkhan [through Chief Secretary] and others, (2020) 12 SCC 131, in the following terms:
8. The High Court in the impugned order referred to Jharkhand Pension Rules to hold that the following three conditions are required to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 37 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB satisfied before the service can be treated to be pensionable service-
(i) Service must be under
Government.
(ii) Employment must be substantive
.
and permanent.
(iii) Service must be paid by
Government.
26. Since the appellants were absorbed as fresh appointees without pay protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be of entitled to count their past service rendered under the Project for the purpose of pension. We, thus, do not rt find any error in the order passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the present appeals.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
6(i). Likewise, in case of casual workers and contract employees who were not appointed on substantive basis was negated for the purpose of pension in Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another versus Magi H. Desai (2023) 18 SCC 705 in the following terms:-
13. Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules provides for commencement of qualifying service. As per Rule 13, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 38 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. It further provides that such officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another .
service or post. Therefore, the services rendered on a substantive post or services rendered as officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying service.
Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service.
of Even the services rendered as temporary service can be considered as qualifying service provided that rt the officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment.
Based on the discussion in view of Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda and Magi H. Desai [supra] this Court has no hesitation to hold that once the petitioner had rendered service as an Anganwari Worker on honorary basis under Integrated Child Development Services Scheme-Project and such service in no manner was substantive appointment nor was a ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 39 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB service rendered on a civil post nor it was a service under the State or the Central Government and the appellant was not covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules, .
therefore, the claim for pension, was rightly negated by Learned Single Judge, which does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
DISENTITLEMENT FOR PENSION IN VIEW OF RULE 13 AND 14 OF THE CCS (PENSION) RULES :
of
7. Appellant is not entitled for counting of service rendered rt as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 as qualifying service towards the regular service rendered as Supervisor from 31.08.2005 till retirement on 29.02.2012 for pension for the reason firstly, the admissibility of qualifying service is available for Government servant, which requirement is not satisfied by the appellant-
writ petitioner; and secondly, admissibility of qualifying service is available to government servants from the date such person is appointed to a post either substantively or in officiating or in temporary capacity but in the instant case, once the appellant was neither appointed in substantive capacity nor in officiating ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 40 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB capacity nor in temporary capacity, which encompasses an appointment on regular basis, after due selection and that too in regular pay scale, .
then, for want of fulfillment of these pre conditions, the services rendered as Anganwari Worker does not qualify for pension; and thirdly, even as per Rule 14(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the service rendered of in "non pensionable establishment" does not qualify for pension and once the service rendered as an rt anganwari worker was a service rendered in a non-
pensionable establishment i.e. ICDS Project-Scheme, therefore, said service rendered from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 cannot be treated as qualifying service for pension; and fourthly, even though, the service rendered under the Government and "paid by the Government" in a "non-pensionable establishment"
was not countable as qualifying service, only if, such service was treated as qualifying service by the Government but, in instant case, since, neither the Central Government nor the State Authorities have treated the service rendered as anganwari worker though rendered in a non-pensionable ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 41 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB establishment as qualifying service for pension then in these circumstances, the petitioner is not eligible for counting of said service for pension.
.
Based on the Rule 13 and 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, once the service rendered by the appellant as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 was a service rendered under of Integrated Child Development Services i.e. ICDS Scheme-Project and was not a service on a statutory post or rt service under the Central and State Government and such service was to entail honorarium and no pay was admissible for such service and the service rendered in [Integrated Child Development Services] ICDS Scheme-Project was non-pensionable and Central/State Government had never declared or treated to qualify it for pension therefore, in these circumstances, service rendered as an anganwari worker was rightly not counted as qualifying service under the CCS (Pension) Rules and therefore, the Impugned Judgement, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 42 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB DISTINCTIVE SERVICE RENDERED AS ANGANWARI WORKER UNDER THE NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT:
8. The Central Government enacted the .
National Food Security Act, 2013, which came into force on 05.07.2013. After enactment of the National Food Security Act, Anganwari Workers and Anganwari Helpers were given statutory recognition, by virtue of of Section 2(1) and Section 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act, which reads as under:-
rt 2. In this Act, unless otherwise requires,--
the context (1) "anganwadi" means a child care and development centre set up under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme of the Central Government to render services covered under section 4, clause (a) of sub-
section (1) of section 5 and section 6;
4. Nutritional support to pregnant women and lactating mothers.--
Subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government, every pregnant woman and lactating mother shall be entitled to--
(a) meal, free of charge, during pregnancy and six months after the child birth, through the local anganwadi, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II; and
(b) maternity benefit of not less than rupees six thousand, in such ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 43 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB instalments as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that all pregnant women and lactating mothers in regular employment with the Central Government or State Governments or .
Public Sector Undertakings or those who are in receipt of similar benefits under any law for the time being in force shall not be entitled to benefits specified in clause (b).
5. Nutritional support to children.--
of (1) Subject to the provisions contained in clause (b), every child up to the age of fourteen years shall have rt the following entitlements for his nutritional needs, namely:--
(a) in the case of children in the age group of six months to six years, age appropriate meal, free of charge, through the local anganwadi so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II:
Provided that for children below the age of six months, exclusive breast feeding shall be promoted;
(b) in the case of children, up to class VIII or within the age group of six to fourteen years, whichever is applicable, one mid-day meal, free of charge, everyday, except on school holidays, in all schools run by local bodies, Government and Government aided schools, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II.
(2) Every school, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), and anganwadi shall have facilities for ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 44 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB cooking meals, drinking water and sanitation:
Provided that in urban areas facilities of centralised kitchens for cooking meals may be used, wherever required, as per the guidelines issued by the .
Central Government.
6. Prevention and management of child malnutrition.--
The State Government shall, through the local anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free of charge, to of children who suffer from malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional standards specified in Schedule II.
8(i). It is only after enactment and enforcement rt of the National Food Security Act 2013 that the duties and functions assigned to Anganwari Workers under the National Food Security Act became arduous and such incumbents were treated to be holders of statutory post and the service was no longer treated to be part of any temporary establishment of [Integrated Child Development Services] ICDS Scheme-Project. This expanded concept based on the statutory provisions of National Food Security Act, was recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 45 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Officer, Dahod and others (2022) 16 SCC 343 decided on 25.04.2022. In facts of instant case, once the appellant-writ petitioner had served in .
Integrated Child Development Services Scheme-Project on honorary basis from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 and thereafter, as Supervisor on regular basis from 31.08.2005 till 29.02.2012 and her entire service of was prior to enactment of National Food Security Act; therefore, appellant-writ petitioner has no right rt to claim benefit of recognition of expanded duties, functions and statutory recognitions as given to Anganwari Workers, who appointed after the date of enforcement of 2013 Act as referred to above.
In these circumstances, once case of appellant-writ petitioner is distinctive vis-à-vis Anganwari Workers who were appointed after the date of enforcement of the National Food Security Act and whose rights have been distinctively recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya [supra], then, the case of the appellant-
writ petitioner herein being at variance cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 46 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB equated with distinctively different category of incumbents, though given the same name/ designation. Moreover, even on facts the judgements .
in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya [supra] related to "admissibility/claim for Gratuity to anganwari workers" not for pension, in view of discussion made hereinabove. In these circumstances, of the claim of the petitioner for pension is not tenable.
RIGHT TO PENSION ACCRUES FROM SERVICE RULES OR REGULATIONS OR SCHEME:
rt
9. Pertinently, the right of an employee for pension accrues, if such a right is expressly provides in the service rules or regulations or in the applicable scheme. In absence of any expressed provision in the service rules or regulation or in the applicable scheme, the claim of an employee for pension dehors the rules or the regulation or the claim is not tenable in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu Narain and others versus State of U.P. and others (2004) 13 SCC 662, in the following terms:
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the averments ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 47 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB made in the Writ Petition that the petitioners have not shown as to what is the basis for their claim of pension.
There are two things: one is the claim for the regularisation of their services and the other is claim for grant of .
pension. The earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Raj Narain afore- mentioned relates only to regularisation of services. If the petitioners had any grievance regarding regularisation of their services and if their services were not regularised early or ignoring their claim services of any juniors were of considered, it was open to them to seek appropriate relief based on the judgment of this Court claiming regularisation of their services from a rt particular date. That is not the claim made in the Writ Petition. No details or particulars are given as to who are those juniors whose services were regularised in preference to the services of the petitioners. No doubt pension is not a bounty, it is a valuable right given to an employee, but, in the first place it must be shown that the employee is entitled to pension under a particular Rule or the Scheme, as the case may be. Inspite of the fact that in the counter affidavit it is stated that no Rule is quoted by the petitioners to say that under a particular Rule they are entitled for grant of pension. In the rejoinder filed the petitioners have also not stated as to under what Rules they are entitled to pension. Some of the petitioners, as we are told, have already attained the age of superannuation. We do not have material before us to say that under what scheme the respondents could consider the petitioners for regularisation of their services and if ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 48 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB so, from what date. It is stated that more than 5000 work-charged employees have already been regularised. If the petitioners had any grievance of non-regularisation of their services, as already observed, it was/is .
open for them to claim the appropriate relief, but, one thing is clear that unless the petitioners' services are regularised in the first place, we find it difficult as to how they can claim pension.
9(i). Likewise, the claim for pension was negated of in case of an employee, who does not fulfill the conditions envisaged under the Service Rules & rt Regulation or Scheme in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others versus Madu Giri (dead) through LRs and another (2013) 11 SCC 603, in the following terms:
8. The matter was examined by this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mangal Singh and Others (2011) 11 SCC 702 wherein it was held as under:
"51. The common thread which runs through all these appeals canvassed before us is that the respondents have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Regulations, which govern the Pension Scheme. We have already considered the nature and effect of the regulations, which are made under a statute. These statutory regulations require to be interpreted in the same ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 49 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB manner which is adopted while interpreting any other statutory provisions. The Corporation as well as the respondents are obliged and bound to comply with its mandatory conditions and requirements. Any action or .
conduct deviating from these conditions shall render such action illegal and invalid. Moreover, the respondents have availed the retiral benefits arising out of CPF and gratuity without any protest.
52. The respondents in all these of appeals, before us, have made a claim for pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme for the first time only after their rt retirement with an unreasonable delay of more than 8 years. It is not in dispute, in some appeals, that the respondents never opted for the Pension Scheme for their alleged want of knowledge for non-service of individual notices. In other appeals, although the respondents applied for the option of the Pension Scheme but indisputably never fulfilled the quintessential conditions envisaged by the Regulations which are statutory in nature."
9(ii). Recently, the claim for pension by employees who were not covered under the service rules, regulation or the applicable scheme was negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2024) 9 SCC 331, in the following ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 50 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB terms:
46. The common thread in the above referred judgments of this Court is that pension is a right and not a bounty. It is a constitutional right for which an employee is .
entitled on his superannuation.
However, pension can be
claimed only when it is
permissible under the relevant rules or a scheme. If an employee is covered under the Provident Fund Scheme and is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim pension, nor the of writ court can issue mandamus directing the employer to provide pension to an employee who is not covered under the rules.
rt Based on the above discussion and the mandate of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Narain, Madu Giri and Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association [supra], this Court has no hesitation to hold, that the claim of the petitioner for pension for the service rendered as an Anganwari Worker is not substantiated either under the CCS (Pension) Rules nor any other Service Regulation or applicable Scheme including ICDS Scheme, which expressly mandates that service rendered as an anganwari worker [on honorary basis, without a statutory post, under a non-pensionable establishment, in ICDS ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 51 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Scheme-Project] was not countable as qualifying service for pension. In the absence of fulfilment of pre-conditions, the claim of the petitioner for .
pension is not tenable and such a claim cannot be granted to the appellant-writ petitioner dehors the existing statutory rules, as discussed above.
10. Third contention of the Learned Counsel of for the appellant is that the Learned Single Judge erred in not extending the benefits of the judgement(s) rt whereby the benefit of pension were given to the petitioner in the cases of Joga Singh and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh [CWP No. 8953 of 2013 decided on 15.06.2015], Veena Devi versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board [CWP No. 5400 of 2014, decided on 21.11.2014], Sandhya Banik and others versus State of Tripura, [WP(c) No. 71 of 2011, decided on 24.01.2017], Mamata Rani Roy versus State of Tripura and others, [W.P(c) 77 of 2015 decided on 08.10.2015], Jashna Begum versus State of Assam and others, [WP(C) No. 3433 of 2022, decided on 25.05.2022], Sunder Singh versus State of ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 52 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB Himachal Pradesh, [Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018], State of Himachal Pradesh and another versus Sheela Devi, [SLP [Civil] .
No. 10399 of 2020, decided on 07.08.2023] and Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer, Dahod and others (2022) 16 SCC 343.
of 10(i). Reliance placed by Learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner on the judgement passed rt by this Court in the case of Joga Singh [supra] is misconceived, for the reason, that the aforesaid judgement relates to a situation where incumbents were appointed as Vidya Upasak against the post of JBT after due selection and of compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on contract basis by the H.P. Subordinate Selection Board, Hamirpur and said contractual appointment was followed by regular appointment also. In the instant case, the service rendered as Anganwari Worker is at variance which was not against a statutory post but was a service rendered on honorary basis and was not a service in a ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 53 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB pensionable establishment and was made without complying with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 and that even the safeguards of Article 311 were .
not available to them. In these circumstances, the judgement in the case of Joga Singh [supra] is not applicable.
10(ii). So far as the judgement in the case of of Veena Devi [supra] is concerned, the same is not applicable for the reason that the petitioner therein rt was appointed as a Clerk in the Respondent-Board on contract basis after due selection and such incumbent was granted benefit of Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which provisions are also not applicable in the instant case.
10(iii). Reliance placed on the judgement in the case of Sandhya Banik [supra] cannot sustain for the reason that the service rendered as an anganwari worker followed by regular appointment was counted as qualifying service to the extent of half of period of such service in view of the memorandum(s) issued in 1979 and then in 1982 [as referred to in Para 12 of judgement]. In ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 54 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB instant case, no such Office memorandum(s)-
decision(s) have been taken by the Respondents and therefore, the facts in aforesaid case are .
distinguishable and not applicable in instant case.
10(iv). Likewise, the issue in the case of Mamata Rani Roy [supra] is also based on the decision taken by the Central Government and the Government of of Tripura that half of the service rendered by an employee is to be counted as qualifying service, rt which situation does not exist; in instant case.
10(v). Likewise, the judgement in the case of Jashna Begum [supra], relates to similar Government decision as in Mamata Rani Roy [supra] which is distinguishable and is not applicable in facts of instant case.
10(vi). So far as the judgement in the case of Sunder Singh [supra], is concerned, the facts are distinguishable, whereby incumbents were daily wagers who rendered whole time service and such service upon regularization was countable for pension by giving the benefits of proportional wages of daily wage service. In instant case, the service ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 55 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB rendered as Anganwari Worker under the scheme was honorary, which was at variance vis-à-vis the service rendered by daily waged and therefore, .
the mandate in the judgement in Sunder Singh [supra], is not applicable.
10(vii). Even the Judgement in case of Sheela Devi [supra], relates to counting of contractual of service for pension upon regularization, which is distinguishable, for the reason, that the service rendered rt by the appellant-writ petitioner as Anganwari Worker from 21.10.1982 till 30.08.2005 was on honorary basis and was not even contractual service but was service under a scheme under a project, which was non-pensionable. Thus, the said service could not be counted for pension unless the Respondents decide to count the said service as qualifying service, which order has not been passed as yet in the instant case.
10(viii). Lastly, so far as the judgement in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya [supra], is concerned the same gave statutory recognition to the anganwari workers who were in service or had ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 56 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB rendered service after enactment of the National Food Security Act, 2013 for the purpose of "Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act". In these .
circumstances, judgement in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya [supra], is distinguishable and not applicable.
CONCLUSION:
of
11. Based on the above discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Impugned rt Judgement dated 02.12.2016 passed by Learned Single Judge disallowing the claim for pension does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The appellant-writ petitioner is not a Government employee. The appellant was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 21.10.1982 and she served under the ICDS Scheme till 30.08.2005, which was not statutory post and was not a service under the Central Government/State Government. The service rendered as anganwari worker was under the ICDS Scheme-
Project prescribed the staffing pattern including payment of honorarium, which also mandated that appointment was voluntary, for which incumbents ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 57 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB were paid honorarium only. The service rendered as Anganwari Worker was under the ICDS Scheme-
Project was since in a non-pensionable Scheme-
.
Project, which does not qualify for pension. Neither the Central Government nor the State Government had passed any specific order giving recognition or in treating the service rendered as anganwari of workers as qualifying service for pension. Even, the appointment as Anganwari Worker was not rt a substantive appointment. Such appointment was neither officiating nor in a temporary capacity. No Rule, Regulation or Scheme expressly provides for counting service rendered as Anganwari Worker as qualifying service for pension. In these circumstances, the appellant-writ petitioner cannot have any claim/right for pension by counting the service rendered as anganwari worker as qualifying service towards the service rendered as Supervisor for pension. Merely, because the petitioner had rendered six years of regular service as Supervisor cannot be a ground to show any leniency or leverage to the appellant-writ petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS- 58 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB NO CHALLENGE TO REJECTION ORDER DATED 21.03.2012:
The appellant had submitted a representation on 20.01.2012 [Annexure P-5], .
which was rejected by the State Authorities on 21.03.2012 [Annexure R-2] and there is no challenge to the aforesaid rejection order before the Writ Court. Moreover, even a perusal of the affidavit filed of by the State Authorities, on Instructions furnished by Respondent No.3-Union of India goes on to show rt that the appellant was appointed as Supervisor on regular basis on 31.08.2005 [Annexure P-4] under Limited Direct Recruitment and she was governed by Himachal Pradesh Civil Services and Contributory (Pension) Rules 2006 which were made applicable from 15.05.2003. In these circumstances, it is not the case that the appellant-writ petitioner is pension-
less. Once the contributory pension was admissible, subject to eligibility, then, the plea for pension is not tenable.
Claim for directing the Central Government/ State-Respondents to formulate a scheme or policy ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 59 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB for counting the Anganwari Worker service towards regular service for pension cannot be granted as policy formulation lies within the domain .
of the Central Government/State Authorities and not this Court. The appellant has failed to point out infringement of fundamental right(s) or constitutional provisions or statutory provisions entitling her for of pension by counting Anganwari Worker service [renderedrt on honorary basis] towards service rendered as Supervisor on regular basis.
In view of above discussion and in facts of instant case, the claim of the petitioner for counting the service rendered as an anganwari worker as qualifying service with regular service rendered as Supervisor for pension; by directing the State Authorities to frame a Scheme, is negated.
Even otherwise, the claim is not based on existing Statutory Rules i.e. CCS [Pension) Rules, is untenable and same was rightly disallowed by Learned Single Judge. Accordingly the Impugned Judgement dated 02.12.2016 does not suffer from any perversity or ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS
- 60 - 2026:HHC:3282-DB illegality and the judgement is upheld.
DIRECTIONS:
12. In view of above direction and for the .
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed, in the following terms:
(i). Instant LPA No. 18 of 2017 is dismissed.
(ii). Impugned Judgement dated 02.12.2016 of passed, in CWP No. 1172 of 2012, Madhu Tomar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another is upheld;
rt (iii). Claim for directing the State Authorities to formulate a Scheme or Policy for counting the service rendered as Anganwari Worker towards regular service rendered as Supervisor for pension, falls within the domain of State Authorities; is turned down;
(iv). Parties to bear their own costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant Intra-Court Appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
January 09, 2026
(tm)
::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2026 20:50:03 :::CIS