Runubala Jena Vs Collector and Dist.Magistrate,Balasore

“ The petitioner therefore, prays that your lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/ or any other further writ/direction, and set aside the Letter/ order No.377 dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Medical Officer (I.C.), Jaleswar CHC, Bhograi, Balasore/ Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-1.

¶20

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶21

The facts of the case, are that the petitioner being duly selected were engaged as Asha in Village Fulbani of Tukurihazira Gram Panchayat in Bhograi block of Balasore district with effect from in the year 2007. While working as such, by an order dated 24.03.2023 of the Medical Officer In-charge, Jaleswar, CHC, the

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

petitioner was disengaged as Asha on the ground of being nonfunctional. Said order is impugned in the present writ application.

¶24

It is submitted by Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner prior to taking the extreme step of disengagement. He further submits that due process for de-recognition of Asha is laid down in the operational guidelines issued by the National Health Mission in March, 2015. Said guidelines have not been followed at all inasmuch as the authorities claim to have convened a village meeting and resolution was passed to disengage the petitioner, but said resolution was never placed before the competent authority i.e., CDM and PHO.

¶25

Mr. Sethy, learned ASC submits that the petitioner was found to be negligent in her duties as also she remained unauthorizedly absent for which notices to explain her conduct were issued. The petitioner however, did not offer any reply. As such, the competent authority decided to disengage her.

¶26

Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that specific procedure has been laid down in the operational guidelines issued by National Health Mission in 2015 for de-recognition of Asha. As it appears, the non-functional Asha is to be first identified and thereafter a list is to be prepared which is to be validated by a validation committee. The next step is to have a village level meeting followed by declaration of de-recognition. Notice of derecognition is then required to be issued to the non-functional Asha. Furthermore, the resolution passed in the village level meeting and the declaration are to be placed before the CDMO for approval. In the instant case, though copy of notice dated

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

10.10.2022 is enclosed to the counter affidavit yet the same was returned un-served with the endorsement ‘1^st day absent.’

¶29

It is submitted by Mr. Satapathy that the notice was sent to a wrong address and therefore, the same could not have been served upon the petitioner. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the resolution passed by the village level committee was ever placed before the CDMO for approval.

¶30

It goes without saying that when the guidelines prescribe a particular procedure to be followed for de-recognition of nonfunctional Asha, the same has to be strictly followed and no laxity can be accepted in this regard. In view of what has been stated above, this Court is not convinced that the procedure laid down in the operational guidelines was strictly followed before disengaging the petitioner as Asha. The impugned order cannot therefore, be sustained in the eye of law.

¶31

The writ application is allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. It shall be open to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner strictly in terms of the procedure laid down in the operational guidelines. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be reinstated as Asha though, no back wages shall be paid to her.

¶32

The period shall notionally count towards service benefits, if any.

¶33

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Puspanjali Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Sep-2025 18:09:30

¶37

Page 3 of 3

Runubala Jena v. Collector and Dist.Magistrate,Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Runubala Jena v. Collector and Dist.Magistrate,Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitamani Barik Vs Shalini Pandit, IAS

Jimut Pattojoshi Vs Regional Passport Officer, Khurda

Suchismita Swain Vs State of Odisha

Mayadhar Behera Vs Golakh Ch.Pati

M/S. Bhatta Hardware Agency, Angul Vs Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., Cuttack

Narendra Paraset Vs State of Odisha