JUDGMENT : It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State-respondents that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2011 and similar order may be passed. 2. By order dated 04.01.2017 passed in IA No.1688 of 2016, the names of petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28 and 29 have been deleted from the array of the petitioners. So, the case of the rest of the petitioner Nos.5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 21, 24 and 25 has been taken up. 3. The petitioners were working as Anganwadi workers and they were subsequently promoted to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). The case of the petitioners is that they were not granted pension since their earlier service was not counted in the post of Anganwadi workers. 4. The case of the petitioners of this case and the case of the petitioners of W.P.(C) No.71 of 2011 are found to be identical. In that case also the period worked as Anganwadi workers was not counted for the purpose of pension. 5. The observations made in Paras 6 to 14 of the judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2011 and another writ petition, read as follows: “6. It is also an admitted position that the State respondents made recruitment rules for the post of Supervisor (ICDS) by notification vide No.F.11(19)DSWE/ESTT/88 dated 15.07.2007 (Annexure-5 to WP(C) No.71 of 2011). That recruitment rule prescribes the mode of recruitment in item No.11 of the Schedule which reads as follows: “11. In case :- “By Promotion recruitment by- (a) 50% promotion from promotion /deputation Junior Social Education/transfer, grade from Organisers/Junior Social which promotion/Education Organisers deputation/transfer is (Femkale) who have passed to be made. the Madhyamik or its equivalent Examination and rendered not less than 5(five) years’ service in the grade. (b) 50% by promotion from Anganwadi Workers who have passed the Madhyamik or its equivalent examination and rendered not less than 10(ten) years’ service as Anganwadi Workers.” 7. It is therefore evident that the State respondents made rule for promotion to the post of Supervisor which is a regular post by way of promotion from the post of Awanwadi workers to the extent of 50 percent of the post of Supervisor. It is therefore evident that the State respondents made rule for promotion to the post of Supervisor which is a regular post by way of promotion from the post of Awanwadi workers to the extent of 50 percent of the post of Supervisor. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioners of WP(C) No.71 of 2011 and the petitioners of WP(C) No.482 of 2014, excepting those of the petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13/30 were all promoted to the post of Supervisor and in the meantime all have retired while working in the post of Supervisor (ICDS). 9. The date of promotion of each of the petitioner has not been specifically stated in the writ petitions. 10. It is an admitted position that all the petitioners were denied pension on the ground that they did not serve the requisite period of pensionary service after their promotion as Supervisor (ICDS). 11. The contention of the State respondents is that the petitioners were engaged under the ICDS scheme projected by the Central Government on honorarium basis and only after their promotion in the post of Supervisor (ICDS) they got the status of a State Government employee. The period they served in the post of Supervisor (ICDS) was not sufficient to count as a pensionable service and therefore they could not be given pension. 12. The contention of the petitioners is that the State Government by a Memo. issued in the year 1979 (Annexure-6 to WP(C) No.71 of 2011) allowed counting of service for Contingent workers, etc. for the purpose of pension. The petitioners of WP(C) No.482 of 2014 also referred to a Memo. vide No.F8(3)/Fin(G)/78 dated 19.07.1982, wherein also the State Government held that half of the period of service of the employees worked as Contingent employees (except parttime contingent employees), Piecerated Typists, etc., etc. should be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 13. We are in a welfare State and all schemes, rules, regulations, are aimed towards welfare of the citizens. Anganwadi workers were engaged by the State under a scheme formulated by the Central Government and they have discharged their duties as Anganwadi workers without any break only on the basis of remuneration they got under the scheme. 13. We are in a welfare State and all schemes, rules, regulations, are aimed towards welfare of the citizens. Anganwadi workers were engaged by the State under a scheme formulated by the Central Government and they have discharged their duties as Anganwadi workers without any break only on the basis of remuneration they got under the scheme. Definitely, the State being a welfare employer has taken decision to give promotion to the post of Supervisor (ICDS) of the eligible Anganwadi workers and thereby recognized the services of Anganwadi workers. While the State is a benevolent employer of the workmen, I do not think it appropriate for the State would be taking a stand that simply because the particular nomenclature was not mentioned in those Govt. notifications, the petitioners who spent their entire service period, they will be deprived/denied of the benefits of at least 50% of their such services towards their pensionary benefits. In my considered opinion, though there is no mention of Aanganwadi workers in those notifications of the State Government, the same view may be taken in respect of the Anganwadi workers, who have been ultimately promoted to the post of Supervisor (ICDS). The services rendered by those Supervisor (ICDS) in the post of Anganwadi workers should be taken to consideration and 50% of such services shall be counted for pensionary benefits. 14. The writ petitions are therefore allowed to the extent that the State respondents shall take into account 50% of the total period of service rendered as Anganwadi workers by those Supervisor (ICDS) and they should be paid pensionary benefits taking into account such 50% services. The State respondents are therefore directed to process the cases of the petitioners for pensionary benefits after taking into account 50% of their services rendered as Anganwadi workers, and if it is found that they have rendered requisite pensionary period of service, taking into account 50% of the services as Anganwadi workers and the service as Supervise (ICDS), their cases should be processed for pension. The process should be completed within three months from today. 6. The petitioners of this writ petition are well covered by the above observations. So, the present writ petition is also allowed with the observations/directions, as indicated hereinabove, in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2011 and another writ petition. 7. Copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.71 of 2011 be tagged with the record.