The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 19547 OF 2024 An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- Sarojini Sahoo ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. M. Das, Advocate, For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA J U D G M E N T 21.02.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:- “Under and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: aforesaid facts the (i) admit and allow this Writ Application. Page 1 of 11 (ii) quash the Letter No.215 dt 12.03.2024, issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.2 by concurrently holding the same as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and thereby direct the Opp. Party No.2 to extend the service period of petitioner of Kapileswar-2 as Anganwadi helper Anganwadi Center under CDPO (Urban-I), Bhubaneswar in the interest of justice. (iii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Helper of Kapileswar-2 Angawadi Center after going through a regular selection process. Her date of retirement on attaining the age of 60 years was 01.01.2024. In the meantime, by notification dated 28.02.2019, the Government in Department of Women and Child Development decided to increase the age of disengagement of Anganwadi Helpers from 60 years to 62 years. Said notification was applicable for those retiring from the month of January, 2019 onwards. The Divisional Inspector of Samantarapur Division by letter dated 01.10.2023 informed the petitioner of her Page 2 of 11 impending date of superannuation and solicited application from her along with fitness certificate for her continuance beyond 60 years. The petitioner submitted her willingness along with medical certificate on 16.10.2023 before the CDPO. However, by letter dated 12.03.2024, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar rejected the request for reengagement of the petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her willingness two months ahead of her superannuation as per clarification issued by the Government vide letter dated 07.05.2022. Though the petitioner completed the age of sixty years on 01.01.2024, she claims to have continued as Anganwadi Helper in the center but was not paid remuneration for the same. She submitted representation to the C.D.P.O. in this regard on 15.07.2024. The Anganwadi Worker of the Center, by letter dated 23.07.2024 also certified that the petitioner is continuing as Helper in the said center. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in the instant writ petition. Page 3 of 11 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO (Opp. Party No.3), inter alia, stating that the petitioner was given an opportunity well before the stipulated two- months period, as per the letter dated 01.10.2023. The claim that she submitted her application on 16.10.2023 is incorrect. The attached medical certificate appears to be tampered with, and the petitioner actually submitted an undated application along with a medical fitness certificate on 31.01.2024. Therefore, her application could not have been submitted before this date. Since the petitioner applied after reaching 60 years of age, she was ineligible for an extension under government guidelines. The Sub-Collector’s rejection of her representation was lawful. Additionally, in her representation dated 15.03.2024, she admitted to have failed to submit the required documents, including her willingness certificate, within the prescribed time and sought for extension despite the delay. 4. It is further stated that the petitioner has made false claims about her continuance beyond 60 years. She Page 4 of 11 has already been disengaged upon reaching the age limit, making her representation meritless. As for the recommendation by the Anganwadi Worker of Kapileswar- 2, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-6), it holds no authority and is not considered valid. To verify allegations of her continued service post-disengagement, the Lady Supervisor, Samantarapur sector, was directed via letter No.475 dated 11.06.2024. After field verification, the Supervisor
Facts
confirmed that the petitioner is no longer serving as an Anganwadi Helper following her disengagement at 60 years. 5.
Legal Reasoning
belatedly, could have been accepted. It is settled law that unless the rules provide, there is no power conferred on any authorities to extend the stipulated period or condone the delay in submission of the application. In the case of Kuntala Joshi v. State of Odisha and Others [in WP(C)
Arguments
Heard Mr. Mithun Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Mr. Das submits that pursuant to the letter dated 01.10.2023 of the Divisional Inspector, Samantarapur, the petitioner submitted application along with medical certificate on 16.10.2023. Mr. Das also argues that since the petitioner had submitted her willingness on 16.10.2023, the same ought to have been considered. Page 5 of 11 Moreover, she has been allowed to continue her duties but has not been paid her remuneration, despite direction of this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would refer to the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit showing the assertion that the petitioner submitted her application on 16.10.2023 is inaccurate. The attached medical certificate clearly seems to have been altered, and in fact, the petitioner submitted an undated application along with a medical fitness certificate on 31.01.2024. As a result, her application could not have been submitted prior to this date. The CDPO also submitted a certificate towards her satisfactory performance of duties on 15.02.2024. As per clarification issued by the Government, these documents were required to be submitted two months prior to the date of attaining 60 years. The petitioner not having submitted the same within the stipulated period cannot lay a valid claim for continuance after attaining the age of 60 years. Page 6 of 11 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Helper of Kapileswar-2 Anganwadi Center. Her date of birth is said to be 01.01.1964. As such, she attained the age of 60 years on 01.01.2024. The Government, vide notification dated 27.02.2019 enhanced the age of disengagement of Anganwadi Helpers from 60 years to 62 years. The clarification dated 07.05.2022 issued by the Government in W & CD Department, inter alia, is as follows:- “An Anganwadi Worker willing to be reengaged should give her willingness two months ahead of her superannuation to continue in service for further period of two that an application years. submitted at belated date to continue service after superannuation is unacceptable.” It means, Be it noted that this clarification also holds good for Anganwadi Helpers. 9. The petitioner claims to have submitted her application along with the medical certificate on 16.10.2023, copy of these documents have been enclosed as Anexure-3 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the said documents would reveal that on 16.10.2023, an Page 7 of 11 application was submitted enclosing therewith a medical certificate under the Heading “Annexure-1”. The medical certificate purports to have been issued on 16.10.2023. Said date has been mentioned at three places in the certificate including under the signature of the Medical Officer. What is significant to note is that date at all the three places clearly appears to have been scored off. On the contrary, copy of the application submitted by the petitioner along with the medical certificate of fitness issued on 31.01.2024 has been enclosed as Annexure-A/3 to the counter. Said medical certificate was issued by the Specialist of BMC Hospital, namely, Dr. Partha Sarathi Panda on 31.01.2024. In view of such clear discrepancy in the dates referred above and in the absence of any clear- cut evidence to support the contentions of the petitioner that she had submitted application along with medical certificate of fitness two month prior to the date of her retirement, this Court is unable to accept her claim as led. Since the guidelines clearly provide that such application for continuance has to be submitted along with certificate Page 8 of 11 of fitness two months prior to the date of retirement, there is no way by which, the petitioner’s application, submitted
Decision
No. 23960/2024 disposed of on 21.10.2024], this Court has taken such view. 10. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, this Court is satisfied that the application for continuance as Anganwadi Helper beyond 60 years was not submitted in the proper form as required two months before the date of completion of 60 years. The Sub-Collector cannot be therefore, said to have committed any illegality in rejecting the application. 11. Coming to the claim that the petitioner has been working despite attaining the age of 60 years, this Court takes note of the fact that by order dated 13.08.2024, this Court as an interim measure directed that no other Page 9 of 11 person shall be engaged as Anganwadi Helper of the center in question. Said interim order has continued from time to time. An order was also passed by this Court on 03.09.2024 directing that since the petitioner is said to be working, her remuneration should be paid followed by another order passed on 08.10.2024 to the effect that remuneration of the petitioner shall be released, if there is no legal impediment. Thus, this Court firstly, never directed the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Helper after completion of 60 years and secondly, the order directing release of the remuneration was subject to non- existence of any legal impediment. 12. From the facts narrated and the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit, which have gone un- rebutted, it is clear that the petitioner was disengaged on completion of 60 years and was not validly allowed to continue working thereafter. Rather, it is evident that from the report of Lady Supervisor the petitioner was not continuing as Anganwadi Helper after her disengagement on completion of 60 years of age. The CDPO also issued Page 10 of 11 necessary directions stating that she had never issued any such instruction permitting the petitioner to work. The question of remuneration would arise only when the petitioner is found to have validly worked, which is not the case at hand. 13. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner not having submitted her application within the stipulated period to continue as Anganwadi Helper after attaining the age of 60 years, was rightly disengaged. Further there being no evidence of the petitioner having validly worked beyond 01.01.2024, this Court holds that she is not entitled to any remuneration. 14. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-Feb-2025 14:59:08 ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 11 of 11