CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has set aside the acceptance of the resignation of a judicial officer who had quit after repeated requests for a Bhubaneswar posting to facilitate the treatment of her autistic son went unheeded.
In a compassionate ruling that highlighted the difficult choices faced by working parents caring for children with complex medical needs, a division bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra directed the state government to forthwith reinstate Ipsita Mohanty as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM.
Mohanty’s 15-year-old son suffers from autism spectrum disorder and other neurological problems and requires long-term treatment, rehabilitation and regular therapy.
The court, however, denied her back wages while granting continuity of service and other consequential benefits from January 3, 2023. Mohanty had resigned from the judicial service on November 29, 2022, after being transferred to Hindol in Dhenkanal district.
According to the case, Mohanty had served at several places, including Puri, Kalahandi, Chandikhol and Bhubaneswar. She had sought a posting in Bhubaneswar for about two-and-a-half years, saying specialised treatment and trained therapists were not adequately available in Hindol and Dhenkanal, resulting in a deterioration in her son’s condition.
However, before her resignation was accepted by the competent authority, she withdrew it through a representation dated December 21, 2022. The government subsequently accepted her resignation on January 2, 2023, based on the HC’s recommendation, and relieved her from service with effect from January 3.
In its September 10 ruling, the bench held that her withdrawal came before acceptance and, therefore, “there was no valid letter of resignation before the competent authority to consider for acceptance”.
The judges also observed that it was not the petitioner’s fault that her withdrawal application was not processed with the same speed as her resignation. “She cannot be punished for the same, particularly when she acted in consonance with statutory provisions and applicable guidelines,” the court said.
Reflecting on the circumstances that led to her decision, the bench said, “Real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways.” It noted that her son’s medical needs had created a compulsion to seek a posting where appropriate facilities were available. Her subsequent second thoughts and withdrawal of resignation were, the court said, what “a rational and prudent person would have done”.
The court further held that her resignation “cannot be construed as voluntary” and quashed the January 2, 2023 notification relieving her from service. The bench directed the state to reinstate her forthwith, with continuity of service from January 3, 2023.