The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 19550 OF 2024 An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------- Saraswati Sahoo ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha and Others ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. M. Das, P.S. Das, Advocate, Advocates 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 10 (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 as Anganwadi helper of Delta Paika Nagar Basti 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 Anganwadi Helper of Delta Paika Nagar Basti 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 Dumduma Division by letter dated 03.10.2023 informed the petitioner of her impending date Page 2 of 10 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 06.10.2023 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 10 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO (Opp. Party No.3), inter alia, stating that having regard to the date of completion of 60 years of age of the petitioner, she was given opportunity much before the stipulated period of two months vide letter dated 01.10.2023. The petitioner never submitted any application on 06.10.2023 with medical certificate as claimed by her. The medical certificate is itself issued on 14.02.2024. The petitioner actually submitted the application on 15.02.2024 enclosing the medical certificate dated 14.02.2024. It is further stated that Anganwadi Worker of the center is not authorized to allow the petitioner to work. Further, the Lady Supervisor also submitted a report upon field verification that the petitioner is not validly continuing as Helper. On 09.08.2024, the CDPO during her field visit, having found the petitioner to be available in the center, issued necessary instructions to her to not attend the center. As regards honorarium, after proper field inquiry conducted by the Lady Supervisor, it was found that the petitioner had not been allowed by her to attend duty and Page 4 of 10 there was no valid instruction to her to discharge her duty beyond 01.01.2024. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Mithun Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 5. Mr. Das submits that pursuant to the letter dated 13.10.2023 of the Divisional Inspector, Dumduma, the petitioner submitted application along with medical certificate. The medical certificate itself was submitted on 14.02.2024, as the Medical Officer was not available being on leave. Therefore, after much effort, she could obtain the certificate from a Doctor of another Hospital. Further, she was also not well. Mr. Das also argues that since the petitioner had submitted her willingness on 06.10.2023, the same ought to have been considered. Moreover, she has been allowed to continue her duties but has not been paid her remuneration, despite direction of this Court. 6. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would refer to the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit showing that the Page 5 of 10 petitioner submitted the medical certificate of fitness on 15.02.2024, which was issued on 14.02.2024. 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. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Anganwadi Helper of Delta Paika Sahi 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 Page 6 of 10 It means, that an application years. submitted at belated date to continue service after superannuation is unacceptable.” Be it noted that this clarification also holds good for Anganwadi Helpers. 8. It is not disputed that the petitioner, in response to the letter dated 03.10.2023 of the Divisional Inspector, Dumduma submitted an application expressing her willingness to work upto 62 years by letter dated 06.10.2023. No fitness certificate issued by a Medical Officer was attached to such application. The medical
Decision
certificate enclosed to the writ petition as also the counter affidavit being issued by the Medical Officer UPHC Unit- VIII bears the date 14.02.2024. Obviously, said certificate could not have been submitted on 06.10.2023. There is no other material placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had submitted her application along with medical certificate of fitness or performance certificate by the CDPO along with her application. It is settled law that unless the rules provide, there is no power conferred on Page 7 of 10 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 [in WP(C) No. 23960/2024 disposed of on 21.10.2024], this Court has taken a similar view. 9. 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. 10. 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 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 Page 8 of 10 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. 11. 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 the Divisional Inspector had specifically asked her not to come to the center. The CDPO also issued necessary directions stating that she had never issued any such instruction permitting the petitioner to work. On 09.08.2024, the petitioner was found to be available in the center during visit of the CDPO but the same, in the absence of any other material, does not ipso facto prove that she was Page 9 of 10 working as claimed by her. The question of remuneration would arise only when the petitioner is found to have validly worked, which is not the case at hand. 12. 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. 13. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge 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 14:59:09 Page 10 of 10