Sabitri Das Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 8313 of 2025

¶3

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

Sabitri Das …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

¶5

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan Addl. Govt. Advocate

¶6

PRESENT:

¶7

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 10.09.2025 & Date of Judgment: 10.09.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.11.12.2024 so passed under Annexur-7 and further order passed on 03.03.2025 under Annexure-11 by Opp. Party No. 3.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

¶12

consequent to her selection, Petitioner was appointed as a Staff Nurse

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

in Odisha State AIDS Control Society coming under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Odisha vide order dtd.28.04.2010 under Annexure-1. In terms of such order issued under Annexure-1 Petitioner when joined as a Staff Nurse on 04.05.2010, she was instructed to work in the ART Centre, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar vide order dtd.12.05.2010 of the then CDMO, Bhubaneswar.

¶15

2.1. It is contended that since Petitioner vide order under Annexure-1 was appointed on contractual basis, Petitioner along with others was regularized w.e.f.13.03.2019 vide office order dtd.15.01.2021 of the then CDMO, Khordha under Annexure-3. However, on such regularization of the services of the Petitioner, Govt. in the Department of Health & Family Welfare Department vide letter dtd.25.10.2021 under Annexure-4, directed to allow the Petitioner and similarly situated contractual Paramedics so appointed on National Health Mission and other schemes to continue in the same post on their regularization in order to ensure that there is no dislocation of health service.

¶16

2.2. It is also contended that Petitioner while so continuing as a Staff Nurse at ART Centre in the establishment of Directorate of Capital

¶17

Page 2 of 8

¶18

// 3 //

¶19

Hospital, Nodal Officer, ART Centre, Capital Hospital vide letter dtd.26.11.2024 under Annexure-5, requested the Director, Capital Hospital-Opp. Party No. 3 to allow the center to retain the regular staff nurse and also made a prayer that the center requires additional two nos. of staff nurse in the near future.

¶20

2.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on

¶21

the face of the request made under Annexure-4 & 5 as well as the requirement for engagement of two additional staff nurses at ART Centre, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Petitioner vide office order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure-7 when was withdrawn from the Center and was instructed to report before the I/C. Dy. Nursing Supdt. of the Hospital for assignment of duties until further orders and Petitioner accordingly was relieved vide order dtd.13.12.2024 under Annexur-8, challenging such order dtd.11.12.2014, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1983 of 2025.

¶22

2.4. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd.03.02.2025 under

¶23

Annexure-9 while disposing the writ petition, permitted the Petitioner

¶24

to make a fresh representation before Opp. Party No. 1 for consideration of her grievance and with a further direction on Opp.

¶25

Page 3 of 8

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

Party No. 1 (present Opp. Party No. 3) for its consideration within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of filing of the application.

¶28

2.5. It is contended that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03.02.2025, Petitioner made an application before Opp. Party No. 3 on 07.02.2025 with a prayer to allow her to continue in ART Center. However, without proper appreciation of the request made by the Govt. under Annexure-4 and the requirement of the center so made by the Nodal Officer under Annexure-5, prayer of the Petitioner to allow her to again continue in ART Center was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.03.2025 under Annexure-11.

¶29

2.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was appointed as a Staff Nurse on contractual basis at ART Center and after her regularization vide order dtd.15.01.2021 under Annexue-3, Opp. Party No. 1 directed various authorities including Director, Capital Hospital to allow such regularized employees to continue in their original place of posting, on the face of such direction issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-4 and the request as well as the requirement made by the Nodal Officer of the Centers under Annexure-5, Petitioner could not have been

¶30

Page 4 of 8

¶31

// 5 //

¶32

withdrawn from the Center and placed at the disposal of Dy. Nursing Supdt. of the Hospital vide order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure-7.

¶33

2.7. It is also contended that since Petitioner was appointed as a Staff

¶34

Nurse in ART Center and after her regularization, Govt. directed to allow such employees to continue in the same post, Petitioner could not have been withdrawn and instructed to work under Dy. Nursing Supdt. of the Hospital vide order under Annexure-7 so confirmed vide order dtd.03.03.2025 under Annexure-11.

¶35

2.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that the impugned order of withdrawal passed on 11.12.2024 under Annexure-7 and further order passed by Opp. Party No. 3 on 03.03.2025 under Annexur-11 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

¶36

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed, made his submission. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a contractual staff nurse at ART Center, she was regularized w.e.f.13.03.2019 vide order dtd.25.01.2021 under Annexure-3. However, taking into account the requirement and dearth of Nursing Officer in Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar with shortage of 53 nos. of Nursing Staff, Petitioner

¶37

Page 5 of 8

¶38

// 6 //

¶39

vide order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure-7 was withdrawn and was directed to work as a Staff Nurse in Capital Hospital under Dy. Nursing Supdt. of the Hospital.

¶40

3.1. It is contended that Petitioner since her appointment and joining as staff nurse, continued in ART Center till 10.12.2024 and was withdrawn only vide order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure-7 because of the requirement and shortage of staff nurse in Capital Hospital.

¶41

3.2. It is also contended that since Petitioner has only been relocated

¶42

to work at Capital Hospital and it is not a case of transfer to any other Department or place, it causes no prejudice to the Petitioner. Since Petitioner has been allowed to continue in the same establishment but in a different place, Petitioner has no right either to challenge the order of withdrawal issued under Annexure-7, further confirmed vide order dtd.03.03.2025 under Annexure-11.

¶43

3.3. It is also contended that after her regularization vide order dtd.15.01.2021 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was inducted to General Health Care and accordingly is not eligible to continue in ART Center. It is also contended that as per the Staffing Pattern so prescribed for ART Centers under the National Operational Guidelines for ART Services, one staff nurse is required with regard to patient load up to

¶44

Page 6 of 8

¶45

// 7 //

¶46

3000 vide Annexure-G/3. Since no document has been enclosed showing that patient in flow in ART Center has reached 3000 at any point of time, taking into account the requirement in Capital Hospital, Petitioner was withdrawn vide order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure7. It is accordingly contended that since this is not a case of transfer and Petitioner has only been relocated to work in another establishment coming under Capital Hospital, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a staff nurse vide order dtd.28.04.2010 under Annexure-1 so issued by the Project Director, Odisha State AIDS Control Society. However, Petitioner while so continuing was regularized w.e.f.13.0.2019 vide order dtd.15.01.2021 of the then CDMO, Khordha and on such regularization Petitioner was inducted to General Health Care.

¶48

4.1. Since Petitioner on her regularization was inducted to General Health Care, the direction contained in letter dtd.25.01.2021 under Annexure-4 cannot be treated as a direction for all time to come. It is the view of this Court that on her regularization vide order

¶49

Page 7 of 8

¶50

// 8 //

¶51

dtd.15.01.2021 under Annexure-3 and her induction to General Health

¶52

Care, Petitioner has got no vested right to continue at ART Center functioning in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 3.

¶53

4.2. Since taking into account the requirement and shortage in Capital Hospital, Petitioner was withdrawn vide order dtd.11.12.2024 under Annexure-7 and she is already relieved vide order dtd.13.12.2024 under Annexure-8 with no interim order protecting her interest, it is the view of this Court that such withdrawal of the Petitioner since has been made taking into account the requirement in the establishment of

¶54

Opp. Party No. 3 and Petitioner is continuing in a different establishment in the same Hospital, this Court is not inclined to interfere with order dtd.11.12.2024 so issued under Annexure-7 further confirmed vide order dtd.03.03.2025 under Annexure-11.

¶55

While not inclined to interfere with the impugned order so issued under Annexure-7 and 11, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition.

¶56

The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.

¶57

Signature Not Verified

¶58

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶59

Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDAReason: AuthenticationDated the 10^th September, 2025/Sneha Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 20-Sep-2025 16:51:16

¶60

Page 8 of 8

Sabitri Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabitri Das v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnathpur Industria Vs State and Ors.

Santosh Ku.Mohapatra Vs Govt.of Odisha

Anupama Khuntia Vs State of Odisha

Jubak Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Chandra Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Susanta Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha