Civil post jurisdiction under the Tribunal Act excluded for ICDS Anganwadi workers and helpers

Anganwadi workers and helpers appointed under the ICDS scheme were held not to occupy civil posts. Their appointments were scheme-based under a welfare programme, funded by the Central Government and implemented through the States, with honorarium instead of regular salary. Recruitment was made through a scheme committee, not under Article 309 service rules, and the usual indicia of a civil post were absent, including statutory creation and regular service conditions. Earlier authorities on civil posts were distinguished as involving statutory or rule-governed posts. The Administrative Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction under Section 15.

---

---

Issues: Whether Anganwadi workers and helpers appointed under the ICDS scheme hold civil posts so as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Analysis: The scheme created appointments under a welfare programme funded by the Central Government and implemented through the States. The posts were scheme-based, not statutory posts, and the workers were paid honorarium rather than salary on regular pay scales. Recruitment was through a committee under the scheme and not under rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The indicia of a civil post, such as creation of a post in law, regular service conditions, and a post held under the administrative control of the State in the constitutional sense, were absent. The earlier authorities on civil posts were distinguished because they concerned statutory posts or posts governed by statutory service rules. The mere fact that the workers performed useful public functions, or that they could be treated as part of the State for some purposes, did not make them holders of civil posts.

Conclusion: Anganwadi workers and helpers are not holders of civil posts, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

---