Dondapati Yamini Vs State of Orissa

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶15

The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

¶16

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated above, it is ardently prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.3 to extend the benefit of duty pay salary for the retrenchment period from 1.4.2001 to 31.7.2003 by regularizing the services of her late husband for all service and financial benefits as has been extended in favour of Santosh Kumar Hota as per order dtd.7.5.2008 in O.A No.1019/2004 of Ls. Tribunal which has been confirmed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dtd.15.7.2015 in W.P

¶17

Page 1 of 4.

¶18

(C) No.11247/2009 within a time stipulation as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶19

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11247 of 2009 in the matter of State of Orissa and others v. Santosh Kumar Hota decided on 15.07.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that challenging her illegal termination from service the Petitioner initially approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal held such termination to be illegal and directed the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that though the Petitioner was reinstated in service, however, she has not been paid her salary for the period for which she remain out of service due to the error committed by the Opposite Parties in illegally terminating the Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the order dated 15.09.2025, which has been filed at Annexure-8 to the writ petition.

¶21

In course of the hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the order of the learned Tribunal in a similar matter in O.A. No.98 of 2016 disposed of on 12.03.2018 at Annexure-10 to the writ petition and submitted before this Court that similar benefit has already been extend in favour of a similar situated person on the basis of the direction of the Tribunal. He further contended that so far the present Petitioner is concerned, he happens to be the wife of

¶22

Page 2 of 4.

¶23

the deceased employee, namely T. Tirupati Dash, who was working as a Jr. Clerk in the office of the Headmaster, S.N. Bidyapitha, Tanganapali. Further, referring to the letter at Annexure-9 dated 06.11.2015 of the DEO, Ganjam, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted before this Court that the case of the husband of the Petitioner has already been recommended to the Government for grant of the arrear salary as is due and admissible to the Petitioner and the same has been quantified and mentioned as Rs.1,36,746/(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six). By virtue of the letter under Annexure-9 the DEO has sought for funds from the Government to pay of the dues as is due and admissible to the Petitioner and similarly situated other employees.

¶24

Although the DEO, Ganjam has written a letter to the Government in the year 2015 seeking funds to pay the dues of the Petitioner and similarly situated other persons, no steps have been taken so far to ensure that the Petitioner is disbursed with the dues as has been claimed by her. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking into consideration the letter dated 06.11.2015, it appears that the matter is pending before the Government for taking a final decision. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State further submitted that in the event the matter is still pending before the Government and no decision has been taken on the letter dated 06.11.2015 of the DEO, Ganjam, as per Annexure-9, he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to

¶26

Page 3 of 4.

¶27

consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time.

¶28

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the writ petition, further taking note of the fact that the husband of the Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,36,746/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six) as per the recommendation of the DEO, Ganjam as per letter dated 06.11.2015 at Annexure-9 and such amount having not been paid to the Petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the deceased government employee, namely T. Tirupati Dash, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to redress the grievance of the Petitioner and to pass necessary orders directing the DEO, Ganjam to disburse the dues in favour of the Petitioner as has been indicated in letter dated 06.11.2015 along with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order.

¶29

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

¶31

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )

¶32

Judge

¶33

S.K. Rout

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 4 of 4. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 18-Mar-2026 10:02:20

Dondapati Yamini v. State of Orissa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dondapati Yamini 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Burra Sitamma Vs Prasant Kumar Nayak

Sidhartha Ranasingh Vs Sankar Prasad Satapathy

Abdhesh Singh Vs Srabani Sarangi

Atasikusuma Kar@Patri Vs Chandra Sekhar Patri

Himansu Sekhar Misra Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrata Behera Vs State of Odisha