JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Both the writ petitions were taken up together for hearing on the prayer of learned counsel of the parties since the facts were identical and the point of law raised in both the writ petitions were also identical. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha for the petitioners in WP(C) No.71 of 2011 and learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioners in WP(C) No.482 of 2014. Also heard learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A.S. Lodh and learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel Mr. Deb has submitted that petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 have made separate writ petitions and therefore prayed for deleting the names of those petitioners from the array of the petitioners of WP(C) No.482 of 2014. It is further submitted by learned counsel Mr. Deb that petitioner Nos.13 and 30 is the same petitioner and has been mentioned twice inadvertently and further the said petitioner Shila Das also submitted a separate writ petition and therefore prayed for deleting her name. Prayers are allowed. The names of petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13 and 30 deleted from the array of the petitioners in WP(C) No.482 of 2014. 4. Undisputed, rather admitted facts are that all the petitioners were appointed as Anganwadi workers under Integrated Child Development Project(ICDS). The scheme was sponsored by the Central Government. On their engagement by the State Government as Anganwadi workers they used to get a fixed amount as honorarium. The petitioners of WP(C) No.71 of 2011 were appointed on 06.06.1980, 03.12.1980, 24.06.1997 and 06.06.1980 respectively. The petitioners of WP(C) No.482 of 2014, excepting that of the petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13/30 were appointed on different dates as follows— Smt. Mamata Debi 10.12.1980 Smt. Laxmi Sen 04.12.1980 Smt. Nilima Bhattacharjee 03.12.1980 Smt. Manju Datta 03.12.1980 Smt. Laxmi Das Smt. Shefali Rani Mohanta 06.12.1980 Smt. Aparna Dey 10.12.1980 Smt. Bani Rani Das Smt. Swapna Das Smt. Gouri Suklabaidya 08.12.1980 Smt. Pranati Paul 03.12.1980 Smt. Chitra Rani Sinha 05.12.1980 Smt. Nilima Deb 08.12.1980 Smt. Ranu Paul 06.12.1980 Smt. Suniti Dey 24.06.1979 Smt. Sabita Kar 04.12.1980 Smt. Maya Rani Nath 03.12.1980 Smt. Anita Das 08.12.1980 Smt. Joya Ghosh Barman 06.12.1980 Smt. Pratima Chatterjee 08.12.1980 Smt. Archana Datta 08.12.1980 Smt. Bhabani Bhattacharjee 06.12.1980 Smt. Kalpana Nath Choudhari 05.12.1980 5. The petitioner Nos.10, 15 and 16 of WP(C) No.482 of 2014 did not furnish their dates of appointment. So their cases cannot be taken to consideration as to which dates they were engaged as Anganwadi worker. 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 recruitment by : promotion/deputation/transfer, grade from which promotion/deputation/transfer is to be made. “By Promotion a) 50% promotion from Junior Social Education Organisers/Junior Social Education Organisers(Female) who have passed 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. 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. 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 part time 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. 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. 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.