Samita Kumari Rath Vs State of Orissa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3102 of 2018

Samita Kumari Rath …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -Versus - State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Mr. A.R. Dash, Addl. Government Advocate .

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER 06.03.2025

Order No.

12.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶9

Heard Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶11

prayer:-

¶12

“That the. petitioner therefore prays that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit the writ petition and to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ applicable directing the quash the order dated 10.01.2017 passed by Opp.no2 for-dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for reconsideration of her prayer in pursuant to the direction passed in W.P.(C) No. 9226/2016, with regard to the order of disengagement dated 24.08.2013 of the petitioner from the service for the

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

post of Sikhya Sahayak, P.U.P School Kodesu, Rayagada.

¶15

And further direct to quash the disengagement order dated 24.08.2013 passed by the Opp.no-1 for the post of Sikhya Sahayak, P.U.P School Kodesu, Rayagada by declaring the said order as completely illegal, unjustified and unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶16

And further direct the Opp. Parties to restore/reinstate the service of the petitioner as Sikhya Sahayak, in pursuant to the initial medical report submitted by CDMO Koraput as well as the audiologist Visakhapatnam, Visakha speech and hearing centre.

¶17

And pass such other order/orders as deemed just and proper.

¶18

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

¶19

The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is that she was selected and engaged as Shikshya Sahayak vide order dated 04.05.2011 of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Rayagada. She was selected as a physically handicapped candidate as she was physically disabled to the extent of 80%. However, on being directed to appear before the Appellate Medical Board on 03.09.2012 and 23.03.2013 for reexamination of her disability, she did not attend for which show cause notice was issued to her on 26.08.2013. She replied to such notice stating that because of her illness she had been hospitalized and hence, could not attend. However, without considering her reply by order dated 24.08.2013, she was disengaged from service with effect from 26.08.2013. She submitted a representation against such disengagement before the Collector, Rayagada. The Collector, vide order dated

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

10.01.2017 held that the Medical Board having assessed her disability at 4%, she is not entitled to be engaged under the physically handicapped category as per Section 2(1) of the Persons with the Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation), Act. 1995. The representation was thus rejected. The order of rejection of the representation is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. In course of hearing, this Court directed the petitioner to be examined afresh by a Medical Board in the SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board on 25.06.2019. By letter dated 08.07.2019, the Medical Board intimated that the percentage of disability of the petitioner is 46%, permanent. Said document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-I/3. In view of the assessment of disability conducted by the Medical Board, there remains no further doubt as regards the disability of the petitioner. Whatever may have been held by the Collector automatically recedes to the background in view of the fresh assessment of disability conducted by a duly constituted Medical Board on the direction of this Court.

¶22

In such view of the matter, the order of disengagement as well as the order of rejection of the representation of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.04.2013 and 10.01.2017 passed by the Collector are hereby set aside. The opposite party-authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The period from the date of disengagement till her reinstatement

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

shall be notionally counted for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits but she shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period on the principle of no work no pay.

¶25

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶26

Judge

¶27

B.C. Tudu

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 07-Mar-2025 17:22:13

¶30

Page 4 of 3

Samita Kumari Rath v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samita Kumari Rath v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumi Chetti Vs the Collector, Nabarangpur

Saroj Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Saroj Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha

Sanjukta Jena Vs Collector,Balasore

Kalinga Eye Hospital, Dhenkanal Vs Union of India

Sunyalata Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha