The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). No. 23960 of 2024 (An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Kuntala Joshi ...… Petitioner -Versus- State Of Odisha & Ors .... Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mohanty, Advocate, For Opp. Party : Mr. A.R.Dash, Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 21th October, 2024 The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may be graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and issue rule of mandamus in setting aside the order dated 28.08.2024 under Annexure-8 passed by the Opp. Party No.4, Sub- Collector, Dharmagarh and the Opp. Party No.4, Sub- Collector, Dharmagarh be directed to accord necessary approval for reengagement of the petitioner in the post Page 1 of 7 of Anganwadi Worker of Munjhari-1 Anganwadi Centre by taking into account the Bio-data under Annexue-1 series within a stipulated period with all consequential benefits. And/ or further be pleased to pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court deems just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated is that she was working as Anganwadi Worker in Manjhari-1 Anganwadi Centre under Golamunda, ICDS Project in the district of Kalahandi. She was due to superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years as on 31.03.2024. By letter dated 12.01.2024 issued by the CDPO, Golamunda, she was called upon to submit her willingness to be engaged for two more years by submitting necessary medical fitness certificate within 10 days. She submitted her willingness to be reengaged on 09.02.2024. The petitioner however, submitted the Medical Certificate of fitness on 13.03.2024, copy of which is enclosed under Annexure-1 series. Since, she apprehended that her application would not be considered favourably, she approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 18258 of 2024. Said writ
Decision
application was disposed of by order dated 05.08.2024 by Page 2 of 7 directing the Sub-Collector to take a decision on the recommendation made by the CDPO regarding re- engagement of the petitioner within the stipulated period. Pursuant to such order, the Sub-Collector, Dharmagarh vide letter dated 28.08.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner for re-engagement on the ground that she had not submitted her willingness/medical fitness certificate within the period stipulated as per Govt. guidelines contained in letter No. 7792 dated 07.05.2022 to the effect that the same has to be submitted two months prior to the date of superannuation. Said order is impugned in the present writ application, which has been filed with the prayer as has already stated hereinbefore. 3. Heard Aurovinda Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 4. Mr. Mohanty would argue that the petitioner admittedly submitted her willingness for re-engagement on 09.02.2024 but being a rustic lady could not submit the medical fitness certificate within time, which was Page 3 of 7 submitted on 21.03.2024. Mr. Mohanty further cites a full bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Akshaya Kumar Parida & Others vrs. Union of India & Ors1 in support of his contention that even if not specifically mentioned in the statute/guidelines, the Court has power to condone the delay in filing of the necessary application. 5. Mr. Dash, learned AGA supports the impugned order by submitting that the guidelines being clear and there being no provision to extend the period of limitation, the impugned order does not call for any interference whatsoever. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the Government guidelines contained in letter No. 7792 dated 07.05.2022, this Court finds that the ordinary age of retirement for Anganwadi Workers is 60 years but same can be extended up to two years provided the Anganwadi Worker concerned expresses her willingness and also submits her medical fitness 1 2015 (1) OLR (FB)-544 Page 4 of 7 certificate two months prior to the date of superannuation. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was called upon by the CDPO, Golamunda by letter dated 12.01.2024 to submit her willingness for re-engagement as also for submission of the Medical Fitness Certificate. Undisputedly, the petitioner submitted her willingness for being re-engaged on 09.02.2024, which is nine days after the stipulated date i.e. 31.01.2024. Further, said expression of willingness was unaccompanied by the Medical Fitness Certificate which appears to sine-qua-non for consideration of the case for re-engagement. No plausible reason has been cited by the petitioner to explain the delay or even to satisfy this Court that she was prevented by sufficient reasons for not submitting the necessary willingness/Medical Fitness Certificate within 31.01.2024. Even, accepting for a moment the argument advanced by Mr. Mohanty that notwithstanding absence of any provision in the Government guidelines for condonation of delay, this Court finds that nothing has Page 5 of 7 been demonstrated by the petitioner explaining the delay in submission of her willingness and the Medical Fitness Certificate within time. It is well settled that in the absence of any statutory Rule, the executive instructions contained in the Government guidelines would hold the field. In so far as the judgment of the Full Bench relied upon by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that in the said case, this Court held that the prescribed period of limitation can be extended if Court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the period of limitation. Obviously, there can be no quarrel with this salutary legal proposition but then, as already been stated hereinbefore, this Court factually does not find that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the necessary application earlier. Under such circumstances, the case law cited by Mr. Mohanty shall have no application. 7. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order so as Page 6 of 7 to be persuaded to interfere. In the result, the writ application being found to be devoid of merit is therefore, dismissed. Deepak Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 28-Oct-2024 12:31:10 Page 7 of 7