Kataka: The Orissa High Court has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer, who stepped down from service under the weight of her autistic son’s medical needs after transfer requests went unanswered.
A division bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra, in a judgment delivered on September 10, directed the Odisha government to restore Ipsita Mohanty as additional civil judge (junior division)-cum-sub-divisional judicial magistrate. While denying back wages on the principle of “no work, no pay,” the court granted her continuity of service and all consequential benefits from January 3, 2023, the date she was relieved.
Mohanty, who was appointed to the Odisha Judicial Services in 2015, faced an overwhelming personal crisis when her 15-year-old son, diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism Spectrum Disorder, began experiencing worsening health, speech inability, and self-harming behaviour. The absence of trained therapists and adequate medical facilities in Hindol in Dhenkanal district, where she was transferred in July 2022, and surrounding areas led to a deterioration in his condition.
Faced with mounting challenges, including ongoing marriage dissolution proceedings, Mohanty repeatedly sought a transfer back to Bhubaneswar for two and a half years to secure continuous rehabilitation for her child. When her representations remained deferred and unaddressed by judicial authorities, she submitted her resignation in desperation on November 29, 2022. However, after consulting her son’s medical team and recognising her long-term need for stable financial support, she wrote to the High Court authorities on December 21, 2022, requesting that the resignation not be accepted.
Despite her timely withdrawal, the Law Department issued a notification on January 2, 2023, relieving her from service effective January 3. .
Taking note of the personal crisis that forced her hand, the bench observed that “real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways.” It held that her decision to withdraw the resignation, driven by her son’s ongoing treatment requirements and her own need for livelihood, was precisely what “a rational and prudent person would have done.”
The court further declared the resignation itself “cannot be construed as voluntary,” describing it as submitted under compelling circumstances and duress.
The bench found that the withdrawal letter had reached the competent authority before formal acceptance. “There was no valid letter of resignation before the competent authority to consider for acceptance,” it held, rendering the acceptance null and void.
The judges also noted that Mohanty continued discharging her duties and drawing salary after submitting the resignation, and that any delay in processing her withdrawal could not be attributed to her. She could not be penalised when she had acted in accordance with statutory provisions and applicable guidelines, including Rule 34(4) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which permits withdrawal of a resignation submitted for compelling reasons before it becomes effective.
The court recorded that Mohanty had an unblemished service record with no pending disciplinary or vigilance proceedings. Quashing the January 2, 2023 government notification as bad in law, it ordered her forthwith reinstatement so that she may resume her judicial duties while continuing to meet her son’s medical needs.
