Mamata Mani Biswal @ Mamata Rani Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Petitioner, a teacher, was terminated from service on the ground that she was responsible for the electrocution of a school girl, who eventually met her Maker. That termination was put in challenge in W.P.(C) No.21988 of 2014 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim order of stay. A police investigation also followed resulting into no case being made out against anyone for the accidental death of unfortunate girl. Thereafter, the said petition came to be disposed off by vide order dated 20.01.2023 remitting the matter back to the portal of Collector to take decision afresh in the light of certain observations made in the course of judgment.

¶15

The District Education Officer and not the Collector having carried out the remand made an order dated 20.07.2023, whereby Petitioner was re-engaged in the service with the same terms &

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

conditions of OSEPA. Since then, petitioner has been working as Junior Teacher in K.B. Government U.P. School, Patimunda under Bahanaga Block in Balasore district.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 to the extent it denies monetary and service benefit during the period when she was away from service, is vulnerable for challenge, inasmuch as though there was an interim order in the earlier round of litigation staying the termination, she was un-justifiably denied engagement.

¶19

Learned AGA-Mr. Lenka appearing for the OPs makes submission in justification of the impugned order taking the Court through some observations made in the judgment of Coordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation launched by the Petitioner. He contends that for the death of girl child, Petitioner is responsible and therefore, no relief can be accorded to a culpable litigant like her in writ jurisdiction.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶21

5.1. Death of the unfortunate school girl is not in dispute. The child died because of electrocution is also not in dispute. However, after the police investigation, none is sent up for trial, the charge sheet having not been filed, in the absence of evidentiary material, inculpating anyone, much less the petitioner, who was away for training course

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

during the said period. Only B Summary was filed under the provisions of Section 173 of erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Therefore, dislodging of termination order is absolutely justified. That being said, it is un-understandable as to how benefits of back wages/emoluments and service can be denied to the Petitioner, who had obtained interim order of stay at the hands of this Court against the termination order and despite that she was denied work.

¶24

5.2. Ordinarily, when a termination order is stayed by the Court or competent authority, the termination is kept under suspended animation and employee is entitled to be put back in the earlier position subject to outcome of the main decision. This view, to an extent, gains support from the Apex Court decision in Shree Chamundimopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1.

¶25

5.3. When employee was ready and willing to work on the basis of interim order of the Writ Court, there is no justification whatsoever for denying the benefits of back wages/emoluments and service. An argument to the contrary would amount to placing premium on the culpable act of OPs, who prevented the Petitioner from serving in the institution, whatever be the status, despite Court order.

¶26

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; the impugned order to the extent it denies benefits of back wages/emoluments and service is quashed, retaining the rest.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

In the fitness of things, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the OPs to count service of the Petitioner, when she was out of employment, for the purpose of regularization at par with similarly circumstanced candidates and further to grant 50% of the emoluments to be calculated reckoning date of interim order i.e. 13.11.2014 secured in W.P.(C) No.21988 of 2014. Further, all other benefits, which candidates immediately junior to the Petitioner, have been granted, such as regularization etc, should also be extended to the Petitioner.

¶29

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

¶30

Now, no costs.

¶31

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶32

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

¶33

Madhusmita

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 14-Oct-2025 10:51:05

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Mamata Mani Biswal @ Mamata Rani Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Mani Biswal @ Mamata Rani Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashinath Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Reena Naik Vs State of Odisha

Ramakanta Samantaray Vs State of Odisha

Sudhir Kumar Lenka Vs State of Odisha

Radheshyam Mishra Vs the Union of India

Deolal Pandey Vs State of Odisha