It is definitely most refreshing to note that while taking a most pragmatic step in the right direction, the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement titled Ipsita Mohanty vs State of Orissa & Anr in W.P.(C) No. 15819 of 2023 [CNR No.ODHC010376942023] that was heard on 18.08.2026 and then finally pronounced on 10.09.2026 has most commendably reinstated a judicial officer who had resigned from service citing her autistic son’s medical needs and the lack of adequate treatment facilities at her place of posting.

We need to note that a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that her resignation could not take effect, as she had withdrawn it before the Governor (the competent appointing authority) had formally accepted it. The Court also took into account that the Judge’s resignation was not voluntary and found that the resignation was submitted under compelling circumstances which arose from her son’s medical condition and needs.

It Must Be Noted That This Leading Case Pertained To An Additional Civil Judge

It must be noted that this leading case pertained to an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Judge) who was posted at Hindol in Dhenkanal district in July 2022. Her son has autism and other health issues which required long-term treatment, rehabilitation and continued therapy. The Court noted that adequate treatment facilities and trained therapists were not available at Hindol, Dhenkanal and nearby areas. The judge had earlier sought a posting at Bhubaneswar so that she could continue her son’s treatment.

Her Representation Dated September 5, 2022

Her representation dated September 5, 2022, was considered by the High Court’s Standing Committee in October 2022. However, it was later deferred and was never finally considered or communicated to her. She subsequently resigned on November 29, 2022, on the ground that she was unable to provide her son with the required treatment and therapy at Hindol.

Ultimately, the Full Court resolved on December 20 to accept her resignation.

Ultimately, the Full Court resolved on December 20 to accept her resignation and forward it to the state government for approval. However, the judge withdrew her resignation the very next day, on December 21, after consulting her son’s treating doctor, who advised that he would require long-term treatment and therapy. She told the court that she needed to continue in service to provide him with the necessary care and treatment.

Her withdrawal application was received by the High Court on the same day. The Court found that the State government and the Governor were not informed of the withdrawal before the Governor approved the Full Court’s December 20 recommendation on December 31. The state government subsequently issued a notification on January 2, 2023, accepting her resignation and relieving her from service with effect from January 3.

The Division Bench Held That The Full Court’s Recommendation Did Not Amount To Acceptance

While taking a serious note of the glaring facts before it, the Orissa High Court held that the Full Court’s recommendation did not amount to acceptance by the competent appointing authority. It merits noting that under the applicable service rules, the resignation became effective only upon formal acceptance by the competent authority. The Court held that since the judge had withdrawn it on December 21, before such acceptance, there was no valid resignation left to be accepted.

Her Resignation Itself Could Not Be Construed As Voluntary

It was also most commendably held by the Cuttack High Court that her resignation itself could not be construed as voluntary, given the circumstances in which it was tendered. The Court thus deemed it fit to quash the State’s January 2, 2023, notification and directed the authorities to reinstate the Judge forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM. However, it clarified that she would not be entitled to back wages but would receive continuity of service and other consequential service benefits from January 3, 2023.

At The Very Outset, This Brief, Brilliant, Bold And Balanced Judgement

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak for a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Both the parties have submitted their respective written notes of arguments. In addition to the above, pursuant to our order dated 20.07.2026, the Opposite Party No. 2 on 18.08.2026 has also submitted the records in original in a sealed cover pertaining to the petitioner's application dated 21.12.2022 regarding withdrawal from her resignation from service submitted by her earlier on 29.11.2022.”

After Being Duly Selected Petitioner On 07.02.2015

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 11 that "after being duly selected, Petitioner on 07.02.2015 joined the Orissa Judicial Services and was posted at Bargarh." Thereafter, on 09.03.2017, the petitioner was posted as JMFC at Puri. Seven months thereafter the petitioner was posted as a civil judge-cum-J.M.F.C. at Madanpur-Rampur in the district of Kalahandi. On 09.05.2019 the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) - cum - JMFC at Chandikhol. On 26.10.2019 the petitioner was posted as J.M.F.C. at Bhubaneswar.”

After Her Marriage, The Petitioner Is Having A Son

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 12 that, “After her marriage, the Petitioner is having a son who is about 15 years old now, who since the year 2016 has been suffering from autistic spectrum disorder (ADHD), who is unable to speak and suffering from many health issues, including neurological disorders and hyperactivity of self-harming, self-biting, etc. For such, she submitted a representation requesting the committee concerned to consider her prayer to keep her at Bhubaneswar headquarters for treatment of her autistic son, and considering the same, the committee concerned on 19.02.2020 posted the petitioner again as a J.M.F.C. and posted her at Bhubaneswar (outskirts)."

While The Petitioner Was Serving At Bhubaneswar

While elaborating further, the Division Bench lays bare in para 13 disclosing that, “While the petitioner was serving at Bhubaneswar, as per the instruction of the doctors, treating her said son, he was treated both at Bhubaneswar and also at Cuttack for proper treatment and rehabilitation of the petitioner's autistic son, and he was admitted at the Institute of Health Sciences as well as in the Model Centre for Children with Special Needs at Chandaka. But four months thereafter due to COVID-19, the said institute got temporarily closed for about one & half years, due to which he could not be provided with the required treatment properly. As per the doctors who treated the petitioner's autistic son at Bhubaneswar, the petitioner was informed that her said son requires long-term treatment and rehabilitation along with continued therapy. While the petitioner was serving at Bhubaneswar, the health condition of her son was improving because of such treatment, rehabilitation and therapies at home as well as private institutes; therefore, the petitioner on 17.03.2022 submitted a representation before the committee concerned through the Hon‘ble District & Sessions Judge, Khordha, requesting the authority concerned to allow her to remain at Bhubaneswar for two more years‘ time so that she can take proper treatment of her autistic son. But her said representation was not duly considered, and thereafter the concerned Committee, by order dated 16.07.2022, transferred the petitioner as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M. and posted her at Hindol in the Judgeship of Dhenkanal. On her such transfer, dated 16.07.2022, the petitioner on 22.07.2022 joined her service at Hindol.”

After Her Transfer To Hindol During July 2022

Delving deeper, the Division Bench further reveals in para 14 that, “After her transfer, to Hindol during July 2022, since then being at her working place at Hindol as well as at Dhenkanal and its nearby areas due to lack of required/proper treatment facilities to a child suffering from Autism and due to non-availability of trained Therapists to provide therapy to the autistic child son the petitioner failed to provide required treatment and therapy to her only autistic son, due to such non-availability and lack of treatment facilities as well as qualified trained therapists to treat her son suffering from Autism at her working place at Hindol as well as at Dhenkanal and also in its nearby areas, the petitioner failed to provide the required treatment and therapy to her autistic son and therefore, his condition deteriorated.”

The Petitioner Also Stated That Her Said Autistic Son Is Her Only Child

Furthermore, the Division Bench specifies in para 15, stating that “The Petitioner also stated that her said autistic son is her only child, and as he has been suffering from autism since 2016 and related ailments, he was not accepted by his family for the last four years due to his health issues, stating further that except for her, there is no one in her family to look after him and to provide treatment and therapy to her said son." Therefore, the petitioner, vide Letter No. 1492 dated 05.09.2022, submitted a detailed representation before the Registrar (Administration) of this High Court through the District and Sessions Judge Dhenkanal, submitting that if her said child could not be provided with the required treatment and therapy in time, he will suffer irreparable loss. For the said purpose, the petitioner requested the authority concerned to consider her case considerably and sympathetically, allowing her to work at Headquarters Station at Bhubaneswar for a period of two and a half (2 ½) years so that she can provide medical facilities and required therapy to her said autistic child. Along with her, the said representation dated 05.09.2022, the Petitioner enclosed all the relevant medical documents of her autistic son and the required treatment as prescribed by the doctor who used to treat her said son. Being at Hindol, i.e., in her working place, including Dhenkanal and its nearby areas, due to a lack of proper treatment facilities for an autistic child and due to the non-availability of trained therapists to provide therapy to her autistic son, the petitioner stated that she failed to provide him proper treatment and required therapy for her said autistic son in her working place at Hindol and therefore requested the authority concerned to consider her case sympathetically and compassionately.”

Also Read: UK Government Legal Risk, Rule of Law, and Citizens’ Rights: When Does Legal Uncertainty Become Constitutional Danger?

The Division Bench Hastes To Add In Para 79

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench hastens to add in para 79, noting that, “We have seen from the counter affidavit of the opposite party No. 2 as well as the record placed before us, the impugned notification dated 02.01.2023 was issued by the opposite party No. 1 as the said Authority, i.e., the Principal Secretary to the State Government in the Law Department, as well as His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha, was not informed of the subsequent events that took place from 21.12.2022, i.e., the application of the petitioner withdrawing her resignation dated 29.11.2022, till the order of the then Hon‘ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa dated 22.12.2022 by which His Lordship directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Full Court for consideration of said application of the petitioner dated 21.12.2022 regarding withdrawal of her resignation dated 29.11.2022." Both the opposite party No. 1 and His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha, were not aware of those subsequent developments, for which His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha, on 31.12.2022, without being informed and without having any such knowledge of subsequent developments, gave his approval on 31.12.2022 on the recommendation dated 20.12.2022 of the Hon’ble Full Court approving the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner tendered on 29.11.2022, pursuant to which the opposite party No. 1 issued impugned notification dated 02.01.2023 relieving the petitioner from service with immediate effect.”

The Cornerstone Of This Notable Judgement

Most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in para 80 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement postulating precisely that, “On the basis of the records placed before the Court by the opposite party No. 2 and on our discussions made hereinabove, we hold and declare that the petitioner’s resignation dated 29.11.2022 from the post of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hindol in the Judgeship of Dhenkanal submitted on 29.11.2022 cannot be construed as voluntary, and further, on the basis of our above discussions as well as records placed before us, we found that the said impugned notification issued by the opposite party No. 1, Principal Secretary to the Government, Law Department, vide No. VJ-102/2022-11/L dated 02.01.2023, relieving the petitioner from her service with immediate effect, i.e., 03.01.2023, is bad in law, and therefore, we set aside and quash the said notification.”

On Being Enquired About: No Work, No Pay

Be it noted, the Division Bench notes in para 81 that, “On being enquired to Mr Khuntia about no work, no pay, the petitioner on 25.08.2026 submitted an affidavit stating that if she is allowed to join in her service, she will not claim any financial benefit for the period she did not render her service.”

The Opposite Parties Are Directed To Reinstate The Petitioner Forthwith

It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 82 that, “Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M.; however, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages." But the petitioner will be entitled to continuity of her service since 03.01.2023 with all other consequential service benefits w.e.f. 03.01.2023.”

With The Above Observations And Directions

What’s more, the Division Bench then further directs and holds in para 83 that, “With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.”

Original Records Produced In Seal Cover

Finally, the Division Bench then aptly concludes by directing and holding in para 84 that "Original records produced in seal cover be re-sealed and be handed over to the Registrar General of this Court (opposite party No. 2) for its needed custody and obtaining necessary acknowledgement from the said authority in that regard.”

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A - 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Important Links

• Lawyers in India
• Copyright Registration in India
• Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
• Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/ NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965