Dismissed

Kanaklata Dash v. State

Orissa HC26 Oct 2021WP(C)/8255/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order disengaging the petitioner and engaging another person as an Anganwadi worker, finding the order was valid and had been acted upon for over 12 years. The court held no merit to interfere with the settled engagement of the substitute worker.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no case for quashing the order dated 27.03.2009 or directing continuation of petitioner's engagement found.

Kanaklata Dash Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8255 of 2009

¶3

Smt. Kanakalata Dash

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate and Mr.Shakti Sekhar, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. U.K. Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel for State

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER 26.10.2021

Order No.

22 .

1. Heard submission of Mr. Shakti Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.U.K. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for State. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel for opposite party no.5, nobody is appearing to make their submissions at the time of hearing of the matter.

¶15

2 . The writ petition involves the following prayer:

¶16

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to :-

¶17

i) Admit the writ application.

¶18

ii) Call for the records;

¶19

iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of the Collector dated 27.03.2009 under Annexure-3 shall not be quashed.

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

iv) And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient or false cause this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 under Annexure-3.

¶23

v) And issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi worker in Bhagabanpur Pallisahi Centre in terms of the recommendation made by the selection committee as well as the appointment letter issued by opposite party No.4 and all financial benefits be extended to the petitioner as against the post of Anganwadi worker.

¶24

vi) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.

¶25

And for this act of kindness, he petitioners

¶26

shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶27

3. Involving a challenge to Annexure-3, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to grounds in the writ petition made through paragraphs 13 to 24 attempted to establish the grounds to challenge the impugned order. On a query as to the position of the

¶28

parties as on date, Mr.Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to interim order dated 03.06.2009 passed in Misc. Case No.6356 of 2009 contended that for the status quo order passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner is still in engagement as an Anganwadi worker in spite of order at Annexure-3 being passed. At this stage of the matter, Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties taking this Court to the

¶29

Page 2 of 4

¶30

// 3 //

¶31

averments made in the counter affidavit through paragraph-4 contended that the order at Annexure-3 dated 27.3.2009 has already been worked out and opposite party no.5 has been engaged in disengagement of the petitioner. It is in the circumstance Mr. Sahoo submitted that for the opposite party no.5 has been permitted to continue for 11 years, it is too late to interfere in the aforesaid order. Supporting the reasons assigned in the impugned order at Annexure3, Mr. Sahoo also attempted to justify in coming to such decision by

¶32

the Authority.

¶33

4. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court finds, petitioner has averred the following facts in paragraph-6 of the writ petition reads as under:

¶34

“6. That pursuant to the office order dated 30.06.2007 issued by opposite party no.4, the petitioner submitted her joining report within time stipulated in the said office order issued by opposite party No.4. Accordingly the joining report of the petitioner was accepted by opposite party No.4 and she was allowed to discharge her duties as Anganwadi worker in the Bhagabanpur (Pallisahi) Anganwadi Centre. Since that date the petitioner has been continuing and discharging her duties as Anganwadi worker in the said Centre. ”

¶35

5. Considering the rival contention of the parties and the

¶36

averments made in the writ petition through paragraph-6, this Court finds pursuant to such averments, opposite party nos.2 to 4 have

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

// 4 //

¶39

filed their counter affidavit and defended through paragraph-4 therein, which reads as follows :

¶40

“4) That in reply to the averments in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the writ application it is humbly submitted that Collector, Bhadrak has passed order on 27.03.2009 (Ref. WP(C) NO.752 of 08) directing the CDPO Bhadrak to disengage Smt. Kanakalata Dash and engage Smt. Arati Prava Mohanty at Bhagabanpur Pallaisahi AWC accordingly petitioner has been disengaged and Arati Prava Mohanty O.P. NO.5 has been engaged. ”

¶41

6. At this stage, this Court also takes into consideration the validity of the order at Annexure-3, vis-à-vis the grounds taken in the writ petition and does not find any scope in interfering the impugned order. Further, this Court also finds opposite party no.5 has already been engaged in obligation to the order at Annexure-3 since the year 2009 in disengagement of the petitioner. In the circumstance, this Court finds engagement of opposite party no.5 in terms of Annexure-3 over 12 years cannot be interfered with at this moment otherwise. This Court accordingly finds no merit in the writ

¶42

petition, which thus stands dismissed.

¶43

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶44

U.K.Sahoo

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Kanaklata Dash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaklata Dash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Caleb Children'S Vs State

Gourisankar Vs Commissioner

Prasant Kumar Parida Vs Lalu Bhumij

Kakarla Varalaxmi Vs Kadarka Muguri

Dr.Rajashree Mishra Vs O.U.A.T.

Anil Ku.Jena Vs State