The Orissa High Court has held that the resignation tendered by judicial officer Ipsita Mohanty amid her inability to secure necessary treatment and therapy for her autistic son at her place of posting was not voluntary, but arose from compelling circumstances. A bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra quashed the notification relieving her from service and directed her immediate reinstatement as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM, while denying back wages for the period she remained out of service.
The Court also found that Mohanty had withdrawn her resignation on December 21, 2022, before it was accepted by the competent appointing authority. It held that the Full Court’s decision to recommend acceptance of the resignation could not itself amount to acceptance by the appointing authority, which, in the case of Civil Judges under the Odisha Judicial Service Rules, 2007, is the Governor.
Background
Mohanty’s son had been suffering from autism since 2016. The judgment records that while she was posted at Bhubaneswar, she was able to provide him with proper medical treatment and therapy, which resulted in improvement in his condition.
After she was transferred to Hindol in the Dhenkanal judgeship in July 2022, Mohanty faced difficulties in continuing the required treatment and therapy. She submitted a representation seeking a posting at Bhubaneswar for two-and-a-half years so that her son could receive the necessary care.
The Court noted that her representation was not finally decided. It further recorded that neither the State nor the High Court administration denied the absence of proper medical facilities, treatment and trained therapists for a child suffering from autism at Dhenkanal, Hindol or nearby areas. According to the judgment, her son’s condition deteriorated after her transfer to Hindol.
Mohanty eventually tendered her resignation on November 29, 2022. The Full Court resolved on December 20 to forward the resignation to the State Government.
On December 21, however, Mohanty withdrew the resignation and sought permission to continue in service. The District Judge, Dhenkanal forwarded her withdrawal application to the High Court administration on the same day.
The then Chief Justice on December 22 directed that her request for withdrawal be placed before the Full Court. The judgment records, however, that the State Law Department and the Governor were not informed about these subsequent developments. The Governor approved the earlier resignation proposal on December 31, 2022, following which the State issued the January 2, 2023 notification relieving Mohanty from service.
Arguments Before the Court
Mohanty contended that she had withdrawn her resignation before its acceptance by the appointing authority and that the authorities were therefore required to consider her withdrawal before relieving her from service. She sought quashing of the January 2 notification and reinstatement with consequential service benefits.
Her counsel Manoj Kumar Khuntia relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Ms. X v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another.
Senior Advocate Goutam Misra, appearing for the Registrar General, relied upon Shriram Manohar Bande v. Utkranti Mandal and Others. The High Court, however, found the facts of that Supreme Court case to be different from those before it.
Resignation Was Not Voluntary
The Court examined the circumstances surrounding Mohanty’s resignation, particularly her son’s medical condition, her transfer to Hindol and the difficulties in obtaining the required treatment and therapy there.
It held:
“The resignation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2022 was not voluntary at all and it was under compelling situation and duress.”
The Court also took note of Rule 34(4) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which permits the appointing authority to allow withdrawal of a resignation in public interest where it had been tendered for compelling reasons not reflecting upon the employee’s integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request followed a material change in the circumstances that originally compelled the resignation.
The records further showed that no departmental proceeding or vigilance case was pending or contemplated against Mohanty and there was no adverse material concerning her integrity or efficiency. She had also continued to discharge her duties after tendering her resignation.
Withdrawal Came Before Acceptance by Appointing Authority
The Court held that the Governor is the appointing and accepting authority for Civil Judges under the applicable service rules. The High Court, though vested with control over the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution, is not itself the appointing authority for Civil Judges.
Justice Mishra, in his additional reasons concurring with Justice Pathak, distinguished the constitutional position of Supreme Court and High Court judges from that of subordinate judicial officers. He held that the latter are governed by service rules and their resignation becomes effective upon formal acceptance by the competent appointing authority.
Referring to Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, the Court reiterated that, in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn before it becomes effective.
Applying that principle to Mohanty’s case, Justice Mishra observed:
“The resignation given by the petitioner on 29.11.2022 having been withdrawn on 21.12.2022, much before the date of acceptance by the competent appointing authority, i.e., 02.01.2023, there was no valid letter of resignation before the competent authority to consider for acceptance.”
The Court further held that approval of the resignation by the Full Court and its forwarding to the Government could not be treated as acceptance by the appointing authority.
Reinstatement Ordered, No Back Wages
The High Court ultimately declared that Mohanty’s November 29, 2022 resignation could not be construed as voluntary and quashed the January 2, 2023 notification relieving her from service as being bad in law.
It directed the authorities to reinstate her forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM.
Mohanty will not be entitled to back wages for the period during which she did not render service. She had filed an affidavit stating that she would not claim financial benefits for that period if permitted to rejoin.
The Court, however, granted her continuity of service from January 3, 2023, along with all other consequential service benefits from that date. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Ipsita Mohanty v. State of Orissa and Another
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 15819 of 2023
Bench: Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
Date: September 10, 2026
