Summary: The Orissa High Court in Ipsita Mohanty vs State of Orissa & Anr. held that the resignation of an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate could not take effect because she had withdrawn it before its formal acceptance by the Governor, the competent appointing authority. The judicial officer, who was posted at Hindol in Dhenkanal district in July 2022, had earlier sought a posting at Bhubaneswar because her autistic son required long-term treatment, rehabilitation and continuous therapy, while adequate treatment facilities and trained therapists were unavailable at Hindol and nearby areas. After her representation remained unresolved, she tendered her resignation on November 29, 2022. The Full Court resolved on December 20, 2022 to accept the resignation and forward it to the State Government. However, she withdrew the resignation the following day after consulting her son’s treating doctor. The withdrawal application was received by the High Court on December 21, but the State Government and the Governor were not informed of this development before the Governor approved the earlier recommendation on December 31, 2022. The State subsequently issued a notification on January 2, 2023 relieving her from service. The High Court held that the Full Court’s recommendation did not itself constitute acceptance by the competent authority and that, considering the circumstances, the resignation could not be regarded as voluntary. It quashed the notification and directed her immediate reinstatement. While denying back wages, the Court granted continuity of service and consequential service benefits with effect from January 3, 2023.
Background and Circumstances Leading to Resignation
In Ipsita Mohanty vs State of Orissa & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 15819 of 2023 [CNR No. ODHC010376942023], heard on August 18, 2026 and pronounced on September 10, 2026, the Orissa High Court reinstated a judicial officer who had resigned from service because of her autistic son’s medical needs and the lack of adequate treatment facilities at her place of posting. A Division Bench comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that her resignation could not take effect because she had withdrawn it before the Governor, being the competent appointing authority, formally accepted it. The Court also found that the resignation could not be regarded as voluntary, as it had been tendered under compelling circumstances arising from her son’s medical condition and treatment requirements.
The case concerned an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate who was posted at Hindol in Dhenkanal district in July 2022. Her son has autism and other health conditions requiring long-term treatment, rehabilitation and continuous therapy. The Court noted that adequate treatment facilities and trained therapists were not available at Hindol, Dhenkanal or nearby areas. The judicial officer had accordingly sought a posting at Bhubaneswar to enable her to continue her son’s treatment.
Her representation dated September 5, 2022 was considered by the High Court’s Standing Committee in October 2022. However, its consideration was subsequently deferred, and no final decision was communicated to her. She thereafter tendered her resignation on November 29, 2022, stating that she was unable to provide her son with the necessary treatment and therapy while posted at Hindol.
The Full Court resolved on December 20, 2022 to accept her resignation and forward its recommendation to the State Government for approval. However, after consulting her son’s treating doctor, the judicial officer withdrew her resignation on December 21, 2022. The doctor had advised that her son would require long-term treatment and therapy. She stated that she needed to remain in service to provide him with the necessary care and treatment.
Her withdrawal application was received by the High Court on the same day. The Court found that neither the State Government nor the Governor had been informed of the withdrawal before the Governor approved the Full Court’s recommendation dated December 20, 2022 on December 31, 2022. The State Government subsequently issued a notification dated January 2, 2023 accepting her resignation and relieving her from service with effect from January 3, 2023.
Findings of the Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court held that the Full Court’s recommendation did not constitute acceptance by the competent appointing authority. Under the applicable service rules, the resignation could become effective only upon its formal acceptance by the competent authority. Since the judicial officer had withdrawn her resignation on December 21, 2022, before such acceptance, no subsisting resignation remained available for acceptance.
The Court further held that the resignation could not be construed as voluntary, considering the circumstances in which it had been tendered. It therefore quashed the State Government’s notification dated January 2, 2023 and directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM. The Court clarified that she would not be entitled to back wages but would be entitled to continuity of service and all other consequential service benefits with effect from January 3, 2023.
Judgment and Reasons
At the outset, the judgment authored by Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak for the Division Bench records in paragraph 2:
“Both the parties have submitted their respective written note of arguments. In addition to the above pursuant to our order dated 20.07.2026 The Opposite Party No.2 on 18.08.2026 has also submitted the records in original in a sealed cover pertaining to petitioner‘s application dated 21.12.2022 regarding withdrawal from her resignation from service submitted by her earlier on 29.11.2022.”
The Division Bench records the petitioner’s service history in paragraph 11:
“After being duly selected Petitioner on 07.02.2015, joined in the Orissa Judicial Services and was posted at Bargarh. Thereafter on 09.03.2017 the petitioner was posted as JMFC at Puri. Seven months thereafter the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C. at Madanpur-Rampur in the district of Kalahandi. On 09.05.2019 the petitioner was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- JMFC at Chandikhol. On 26.10.2019 the petitioner was posted as J.M.F.C. at Bhubaneswar.”
In paragraph 12, the Division Bench describes the medical condition of the petitioner’s son and the circumstances surrounding her earlier posting at Bhubaneswar:
“After her marriage the Petitioner is having a son who is about 15 years old now, who since the year 2016 is suffering from autistic spectrum disorder (ADHD), who is unable to speak and suffering from many health issues including neurological disorder and hyper activities of self-harming, self-biting, etc. For Such She submitted a representation requesting the committee concerned to consider her prayer to keep her at Bhubaneswar Headquarter for treatment of her Autistic son and considering the same the committee concerned on 19.02.2020 posted the petitioner again as a J.M.F.C. and posted her at Bhubaneswar (outskirt).”
The Bench further explains in paragraph 13:
“While the petitioner was serving at Bhubaneswar, as per the instruction of the doctors, treating her said son he was treated both at Bhubaneswar and also at Cuttack for proper treatment and rehabilitation of petitioner‘s autistic son, and he was admitted at the Institute of Health Sciences well as in the Model Centre for Child with special needs at Chandaka. But four months thereafter due to COVID-19, the said institute got temporarily closed for about one & half years, due to which he could not be provided with the required treatment properly. As per the Doctors who treated petitioner‘s autistic son at Bhubaneswar the petitioner was informed that her said son requires a long-term treatment and rehabilitation along with continued therapy. While the petitioner was serving at Bhubaneswar the health condition of her son was improving because of such treatment, rehabilitation and therapies at home as well as private institutes, therefore the petitioner on 17.03.2022 submitted a representation before the committee concerned through the Hon‘ble District & Sessions Judge, Khordha, requesting the authority concerned to allow her to remain at Bhubaneswar for two more years‘ time so that she can take proper treatment of her autistic son. But her said representation was not duly considered and thereafter the concerned Committee by order dated 16.07.2022 transferred the petitioner as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M and posted her at Hindol in the Judgeship of Dhenkanal. On her such transfer, dated 16.07.2022 the petitioner on 22.07.2022 joined her service at Hindol.”
Regarding the lack of appropriate treatment facilities at the new place of posting, the Division Bench observes in paragraph 14:
“After her transfer, to Hindol during July 2022, since then being at her working place at Hindol as well as at Dhenkanal and its nearby areas due to lack of required/proper treatment facilities to a child suffering from Autism and due to non-availability of trained Therapists to provide therapy to the autistic child son the petitioner failed to provide required treatment and therapy to her only autistic son, due to such non-availability and lack of treatment facilities as well as qualified trained therapists to treat her son suffering from Autism at her working place at Hindol as well as at Dhenkanal and also in its nearby areas, the petitioner failed to provide the required treatment and therapy to her autistic son and therefore, his condition deteriorated.”
Paragraph 15 records the contents of the petitioner’s representation seeking a posting at Bhubaneswar:
“The Petitioner also stated that her said autistic son is her only child and as he is suffering from autism since 2016 and related ailments therefore, he was not accepted by his family for the last four years due to his health issues, stating further that except her there is no one in her family to look after him and to provide treatment and therapy to her said son. Therefore the petitioner vide Letter No.1492 dated 05.09.2022 submitted a detailed representation before the Registrar (Administration) of this High Court through the District and Sessions Judge Dhenkanal submitting that if her said child could not be provided with the required treatment and therapy in time he will suffer irreparable loss. For the said purpose the petitioner requested the authority concerned to consider her case considerably and sympathetically allowing her to work at Headquarters Station at Bhubaneswar for a period of two and half (2 ½) years so that she can provide medical facilities and required therapy to her said autistic child. Along with her the said representation dated 05.09.2022 the Petitioner enclosed all the relevant medical documents of her autistic son and the required treatment as prescribed by the Doctor who use to treat her said son. Being at Hindol, i.e. in her working place including Dhenkanal and its nearby areas due to lack of proper treatment facilities to an autistic child and due to non-availability of trained Therapists to provide therapy to her autistic son the petitioner stated that she failed to provide him proper treatment and required therapy to her said autistic son in her working place at Hindol and therefore, requested the authority concerned to consider her case sympathetically and compassionately.”
Quashing of Resignation Acceptance and Reinstatement
In paragraph 79, the Division Bench records that the Governor and the State Government were not informed about the petitioner’s withdrawal of resignation before approval was granted:
“We have seen from the counter affidavit of the opposite party No.2 as well as the record placed before us, the impugned notification dated 02.01.2023 was issued by the opposite party No.1 as the said Authority, i.e. the Principal Secretary to State Government in the Law Department as well as His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha was not informed with the subsequent events that took place from 21.12.2022 i.e. the application of the petitioner withdrawing her resignation dated 29.11.2022, till the order of the then Hon‘ble Chief Justice of High Court of Orissa dated 22.12.2022 by which His Lordship directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble Full Court for consideration of said application of the petitioner dated 21.12.2022 regarding withdrawal of her resignation dated 29.11.2022. Both the opposite party No.1 and His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha were not aware of those subsequent developments, for which, His Excellency, the Hon’ble Governor of Odisha on 31.12.2022, without being informed and without having any such knowledge of subsequent developments gave his approval on 31.12.2022 on the recommendation dated 20.12.2022 of the Hon’ble Full Court approving the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner tendered on 29.11.2022, pursuant to which the opposite party No.1 issued impugned notification dated 02.01.2023 relieving the petitioner from service with immediate effect.”
The principal finding is recorded in paragraph 80:
“On the basis of the records placed before the Court by the opposite party No.2 and on our discussions made hereinabove, we hold and declare that the petitioner’s resignation dated 29.11.2022 from the post of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hindol in the Judgeship of Dhenkanal submitted on 29.11.2022 cannot be construed as voluntary and further on the basis of our above discussions as well as records placed before us, we found that the said impugned notification issued by the opposite party No.1, Principal Secretary to the Government, Law Department vide No.VJ-102/2022-11/L dated 02.01.2023 relieving the petitioner from her service with immediate effect, i.e. 03.01.2023 is bad in law and therefore, we set aside and quash the said notification.”
On the question of back wages, the Division Bench notes in paragraph 81:
“On being enquired to Mr. Khuntia about no work no pay, the petitioner on 25.08.2026 submitted an affidavit stating that if she is allowed to join in her service, she will not claim any financial benefit for the period she did not render her service.”
The consequential direction for reinstatement is contained in paragraph 82:
“Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M. however the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. But the petitioner will be entitled for continuity of her service since 03.01.2023 with all other consequential service benefits w.e.f. 03.01.2023.”
The Division Bench accordingly concluded in paragraph 83:
“With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.”
Finally, regarding the original records, the Court directed in paragraph 84:
“Original records produced in seal cover be re-sealed and be handed over to the Registrar General of this Court (opposite party No.2) for its needed custody and obtaining necessary acknowledgement from the said authority in that regard.”
