JUDGMENT : The instant case has a chequered history of almost three decades. The semblance of right which had accrued in favour of the petitioners saw the light of the day in the year 1995 itself and the final fruit of such action is yet to be received by the stake holders who, in the instant case are the petitioners. 2. The petitioners who are 17 in numbers have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which they have prayed for giving them all the benefits which are otherwise given to Supervisors appointed in the Social Welfare Department, Government of Assam. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has clarified that due to typographical mistake, the name of the petitioner no. 11 has been typed out as Ms. Machina Khatun which should be Ms. Hachina Khatun. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner no. 11 may be read as Ms. Hachina Khatun. 3. The Central Government had introduced a scheme mainly for welfare of children called the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and to man the said scheme numerous posts were introduced. In the lower ladder, the posts of Anganwadi Helper and Anganwadi Worker exist. The petitioners herein were all Anganwadi Workers. Earlier, there was no scope for promotion from Anganwadi Worker to the posts of Supervisors. In this connection, the Central Government in the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Women and Child Development had issued a communication dated 28.04.1985 to the ICDS of different States. As per the said communication, the decision of the Government to reserve certain percentage of posts of Supervisors was conveyed. It was specifically conveyed that a decision has been taken to reserve minimum 25% of posts of Supervisors for selection from Anganwadi Workers who are matriculates and have put in minimum of 10 years of service. The State Governments were accordingly directed to amend the recruitment rules by providing that 25 % of Supervisors shall be recruited from amongst the Anganwadi Workers. 4. Though the aforesaid communication was of the year 1995, it was only in the year 2012 that the State of Assam had issued a notification dated 04.06.2012, whereby certain amendments were brought to the mode of the recruitment to the post of Supervisors. 4. Though the aforesaid communication was of the year 1995, it was only in the year 2012 that the State of Assam had issued a notification dated 04.06.2012, whereby certain amendments were brought to the mode of the recruitment to the post of Supervisors. It was provided that in terms of the Central Government notification dated 28.04.1995, the minimum qualification for Supervisor was given to be Matriculate having ten years of continuous experience. Even though the aforesaid notification was published in the year 2012, no action was seen to be taken by the authorities to make the said amendment effective. Accordingly, a writ petition was filed by the Association being WP(C) 4862/2015. 5. This Court, after hearing the parties had passed an order dated 26.11.2015, wherein the submission of the learned Standing Counsel of the Department was recorded that the Department was already in the process for appointment of Supervisors for 25% reserved quota from amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers and the same would be completed before 31.12.2015.The aforesaid writ petition WP(C)/4862/2015 was accordingly disposed of by making the said direction to complete the process. In fact, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Directorate of Social Welfare had issued a communication dated 01.12.2015 to all District Social Welfare Officers to submit list of eligible Anganwadi Workers for fresh appointment and this fact was apprised to the Court. Accordingly, a selection process was held whereafter, a merit list of successful candidates for 25 % of the post of Supervisors reserved for Anganwadi Workers was published. 6. While, the petitioners who were amongst the selected candidates were expecting that they would be given the regular promotion to the post of Supervisor, an order dated 06.02.2016 was issued by the Director, Social Welfare, Assam whereby, the appointment as Supervisors were termed as contractual and for fixed tenure of three years. Even the monthly remuneration was a fixed one and the petitioners were required to sign an agreement. Being aggrieved by such action whereby a different treatment was sought to be given to the petitioners despite being in the same class of Supervisors, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. In the writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 24.02.2022. Being aggrieved by such action whereby a different treatment was sought to be given to the petitioners despite being in the same class of Supervisors, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. In the writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 24.02.2022. While denying the claims of the petitioners, an order dated 16.08.2021 issued by the Director has also been annexed whereby the Anganwadi Workers who were promoted to the post of Supervisors were given scale payments at the rate of Rs.14,000/-to Rs.60,500/-plus Grade pay of Rs.7600/-. It is further stated that the Supervisors would be governed by the New Pension Scheme. 8. I have heard Shri S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents are represented by Shri J.K. Goswami, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam. The materials before this Court have been duly examined. 9. Shri Kataki, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there cannot be any concept of engagement instead of substantial appointment. Further, the idea of appointing in a contractual basis for a fixed tenure and pay is wholly unfathomable inasmuch as the basis of the present appointment of the petitioner is the communication dated 28.04.1995 which does not contemplate such condition. It is further submitted that apart from such condition being wholly unreasonable, unfair and arbitrary, the same creates a division in the same class of Supervisors with those who are directly recruited. It is submitted that once an Anganwadi Worker who is otherwise eligible is selected as a Supervisor, there is no further scope to treat the direct recruitees as one class and promotees as another class, more so, when the duties discharged are exactly of similar nature. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the benefits which have been granted to the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition should be given retrospective effect from the date of initial appointment. 11. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the case of Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Siemens Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 288 . In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where certain actions were taken by the authorities in the matter which was under consideration before the Court. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation where certain actions were taken by the authorities in the matter which was under consideration before the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while deprecating such practice has laid down as follows: “27. ...All that we need say is that once the Government had known that the entire issue regarding the validity of the process adopted by DMRC including the transparency and fairness of the process of evaluation of the bids was sub judice before the High Court of Delhi and later before this Court, it ought to have kept its hand off and let the law take its course. It could have doubtless placed all such material as was relevant to that question before the High Court and invited a judicial pronouncement on the subject instead of starting a parallel exercise. ...” “29. ...Suffice it to say that the Government ought to have stayed its hands once the matter landed in the Court. Inasmuch as the Government did nothing of this kind, it did not act properly. Beyond that we do not consider it necessary or proper to say anything at this stage. ...” 12. Per contra, Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam submits that there is no cause of action in the present writ petition. He submits that the petitioners had accepted their engagement which was offered to them vide the order dated 06.02.2016 (and similar orders) without any objection or complaint and therefore, they are not entitled to raise any such objections at a belated period. He submits that in this regard, agreements were signed between the petitioners and the Department and therefore, the petitioners are barred from raising the issue of any discrimination vis-a-visthe Supervisors who are directly recruited. It is submitted that the mode of entry into the services are different and therefore, the conditions governing such appointments would be different. 13. Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam submits that the letter dated 28.04.1995 is not any kind of guidelines but a mere communication issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to the States and therefore, no right, whatsoever would accrue to the petitioners from the said communications. 14. 13. Shri Goswami, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam submits that the letter dated 28.04.1995 is not any kind of guidelines but a mere communication issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development to the States and therefore, no right, whatsoever would accrue to the petitioners from the said communications. 14. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the prayer of the writ petition by the learned State Counsel who submits that there is no challenge to the initial order of promotion of the petitioners which envisaged that the petitioners were engaged for a fixed tenure and salary and an agreement had to be signed. He further submits that such arrangements had to be made as there were financial constraints on the part of the Government. The learned State Counsel accordingly submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. The rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. The issue which calls for a determination is whether the initial promotion of the petitioners to the post of Supervisors could have been made on a fixed pay and tenure and as to whether such promotion could have been treated as mere engagements. As a corollary, it is also to be decided that if the principal issue is held in favour of the petitioners, from which date the petitioners are to be held to be entitled to the benefits of a regular Supervisor. 16. To decide the aforesaid issue, it would be necessary to go back to the basis of filing the present case which is the communication dated 28.04.1995 of the Government of India. By the said communication, while the Government was considering increase in the honorarium and other benefits of Anganwadi Workers, a decision was already taken to reserve minimum 25 % posts of Supervisors for selection from Anganwadi Workers who are Matriculates and having minimum 10 years of experience. Even assuming for arguments sake that the contents of the said communication is not a guideline as tried to be projected on behalf of the State, the subsequent notification by the State dated 04.06.2012 would be of vital importance as it is by this notification that 25 % reserve quota was introduced. Even assuming for arguments sake that the contents of the said communication is not a guideline as tried to be projected on behalf of the State, the subsequent notification by the State dated 04.06.2012 would be of vital importance as it is by this notification that 25 % reserve quota was introduced. While doing so, the State Government did not even indicate that the mode of recruitment to the posts of Supervisors would have any cascading effect on the service conditions of the promotional posts of Supervisors. Further, what is more intriguing is that the notification was not given effect to for which the Association of Anganwadi Workers had to approach this Court by means of a writ petition being WP(C)/4862/2015 and it was only thereafter when the recruitment process was initiated. Though the case of Seimens (supra) was cited, the same may not have any direct relevance as by the subsequent order dated 16.08.2021 passed during the pendency of the present writ petition is not to the prejudice of the petitioners but is only a measure to redress their grievance, though partially. 17. It transpires that the recruitment process was initiated vide the communication dated 01.10.2015 wherein, the petitioners were amongst the successful Anganwadi Workers who were selected for promotion to the post of Supervisors. After going through the selection process and being promoted to the post of Supervisors, there was no reason as to how the petitioners could be deprived of substantive appointment and rather were given contractual appointment, that too for a fixed period and pay. There is no doubt that the cadre of Supervisor is one and the same and therefore, whether one is appointed directly in the 75 % of the vacancies or promoted after selection from Anganwadi Worker in the reserved 25 % quota cannot make any difference in their service conditions as Supervisors. Rather, this Court is of the opinion that the cadre of Supervisor is a homogeneous one where the mode of entry into the said cadre would be wholly irrelevant. On a specific query by this Court, it has been clarified that there is no difference in the duties discharged by a directly recruited Supervisor or one who is promoted from Anganwadi Worker. On a specific query by this Court, it has been clarified that there is no difference in the duties discharged by a directly recruited Supervisor or one who is promoted from Anganwadi Worker. Further, the recruitment process for Supervisors which was initiated by the communication dated 01.10.2015 was only to fill up 25 % quota reserved for Anganwadi Workers and not for some other posts belonging to a different cadre. The learned State Counsel has also clarified that as on August, 2021, there were 924 nos. of Supervisors out of which 647 were directly recruited and in the year 2016, 277 nos. were promoted from the rank of Anganwadi Workers. 18. Though a frail argument was advanced on behalf of the State with regard to financial concurrence, this Court is of the opinion that the same cannot be a ground to deprive the legal entitlement of an incumbent who is inducted into the services by following the due process of law. Rather, it is the bounden duty of the Department to obtain prior approval from all the concerned Departments including the Finance Department before starting the recruitment process and such approval is assumed to have been obtained. Further, in the instant case, though the initial communication of the Government of India was of the year 1995, the Rules were amended only in the year 2012 and the recruitment process initiated in October, 2015 that too, after filing of a writ petition by the Association. 19. As would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition that finally vide orders dated 16.08.2021 (or of nearby dates) the petitioners have been given the benefit of a regular appointment, this Court is of the opinion that such benefits are to be given retrospective effect from the date of their initial appointment made on 06.02.2016. Such retrospective effect would also include the balance of the monthly salaries which is to be calculated in terms of scale which the petitioners would have been otherwise paid and the arrears be released to them accordingly. All other benefits including fitment in the appropriate scale of pay, seniority etc. are also directed to be given to the petitioners. Such retrospective effect would also include the balance of the monthly salaries which is to be calculated in terms of scale which the petitioners would have been otherwise paid and the arrears be released to them accordingly. All other benefits including fitment in the appropriate scale of pay, seniority etc. are also directed to be given to the petitioners. The aforesaid direction is given in view of the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the nature of the service discharged by the petitioners as Supervisors and are part of the same cadre of Supervisors which also includes regular appointee in the rest 75 % of the vacancies. 20. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The directions contained in the preceding paragraphs are to be complied with within a period of 60 days from today. 21. No order as to cost.