Maguni Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order dated 07.03.2017 so issued by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2. Vide the said order, benefit of regular promotion as against the post of I.C.D.S. Supervisor extended vide office order dated 20.12.2016 under Annexure-1 was modified to a contractual one.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Anganwadi worker basing on the relevant rules i.e. Orissa Children’s & Women’s Welfare Service (Amendment) Rules, 2007 (in short ‘Rules’), Petitioner on being found eligible was extended with the benefit of

¶20

Page 1 of 4.

¶21

promotion to the post of I.C.D.S. Supervisor as against the 30% of the post meant for such Anganwadi Workers.

¶22

4.1. It is contended that since in terms of the aforesaid rules, Petitioner on being found suitable was extended with the benefit of promotion to the post of I.C.D.S. Supervisor, the same could not have been converted to a contractual one vide the impugned order dated 07.03.2017 under Annexure-2.

¶23

4.2. It is also contended that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal on 11.12.2018 wherein direction was issued to disburse the salary in the prescribed scale of pay as indicated in the order dated 20.12.2016 under Annexure-1, so also in the order dated 07.03.2017 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was paid consolidated remuneration of Rs.16,000/-.

¶24

4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was duly promoted to the rank of I.C.D.S. Supervisor against the vacancy meant for them to the extent of 30% in accordance with the aforesaid 2007 rules, the same could not have been treated as a contractual one vide the impugned order so issued under Annexure-2 and the same accordingly is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶25

Mr. Samresh Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that in terms of the aforesaid 2007 Rules, Petitioner on being found suitable was extended with the benefit of promotion to the post of I.C.D.S. Supervisor as against the vacancy meant for eligible Anganwadi Workers to the extent of 30%.

¶26

Page 2 of 4.

¶27

5.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner got the benefit of promotion to a promotional post, the same could not have been converted to a contractual one vide the impugned order so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that since Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion to the post of I.C.D.R. Supervisor as against 30% of the post so reserved for Anganwadi Worker under the aforesaid 2007 Rules vide order under Annexure-1, the same could not have been treated as a contractual one with passing of the impugned order on 07.03.2017 under Annexure-2.

¶29

6.1. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel and the provisions contained under the 2007 Rules, this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 07.03.2017 under Annexure-2, so far as it relates to the Petitioner. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the matter afresh in terms of order passed in similar case, particularly one in W.P.(C) No.3057 of 2017 (Swaraswati Sahoo v. State of Odisha and Others). In the event it is found that the present Petitioner stands in similar footing with the above noted Petitioner, then similar benefits be extended in her favour within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediments. It is needless to mention here that in the event the

¶30

Page 3 of 4.

¶31

Petitioner has retired from service in the meantime, necessary consequential reliefs be calculated and extended in favour of the Petitioner subject to Opposite Parties are coming to a conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled to such benefits.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶33

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

¶34

Debasis

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 06-Mar-2025 19:56:49

¶37

Page 4 of 4.

Maguni Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maguni Pradhan 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

Harendra Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Nikhila Odisha Gramarakhi Mahasangha, Bhuban, Jajpur Vs State of Odisha

Pramod Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Adait Charan Bhol Vs State of Odisha

Sabita Nishank Vs State of Odisha