Orissa High Court
Saraswati Sahoo vs State Of Odisha And Others ...... Opp. ... on 21 February, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No. 19550 OF 2024
An application under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India.
--------------
Saraswati Sahoo ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others ...... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. M. Das,
P.S. Das, Advocate,
Advocates
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
21.02.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking
the following relief:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
(i) admit and allow this Writ Application.
(ii) quash the Letter No.215 dt 12.03.2024,
issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar,
opposite party No.2 by concurrently holding the
same as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the
eye of law and thereby direct the Opp. Party
No.2 to extend the service period of petitioner
as Anganwadi helper of Delta Paika Nagar
Basti Anganwadi Center under CDPO (Urban-
I), Bhubaneswar in the interest of justice.
(iii) pass such other order(s) or issue
direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in
the bona fide interest of justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was
engaged as Anganwadi Helper of Delta Paika Nagar Basti
Angawadi Center after going through a regular selection
process. Her date of retirement on attaining the age of 60
years was 01.01.2024. In the meantime, by notification
dated 28.02.2019, the Government in Department of
Women and Child Development decided to increase the
age of disengagement of Anganwadi Helpers from 60 years
to 62 years. Said notification was applicable for those
retiring from the month of January, 2019 onwards. The
Divisional Inspector of Dumduma Division by letter dated
03.10.2023 informed the petitioner of her impending date
of superannuation and solicited application from her
along with fitness certificate for her continuance beyond
60 years. The petitioner submitted her willingness along
with medical certificate on 06.10.2023 before the CDPO.
However, by letter dated 12.03.2024, the Sub-Collector,
Bhubaneswar rejected the request for reengagement of the
petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her
willingness two months ahead of her superannuation as
per clarification issued by the Government vide letter
dated 07.05.2022. Though the petitioner completed the
age of sixty years on 01.01.2024, she claims to have
continued as Anganwadi Helper in the center but was not
paid remuneration for the same. She submitted
representation to the C.D.P.O. in this regard on
15.07.2024. The Anganwadi Worker of the Center, by
letter dated 23.07.2024 also certified that the petitioner is
continuing as Helper in the said center. Since no action
was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in the
instant writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO
(Opp. Party No.3), inter alia, stating that having regard to
the date of completion of 60 years of age of the petitioner,
she was given opportunity much before the stipulated
period of two months vide letter dated 01.10.2023. The
petitioner never submitted any application on 06.10.2023
with medical certificate as claimed by her. The medical
certificate is itself issued on 14.02.2024. The petitioner
actually submitted the application on 15.02.2024
enclosing the medical certificate dated 14.02.2024. It is
further stated that Anganwadi Worker of the center is not
authorized to allow the petitioner to work. Further, the
Lady Supervisor also submitted a report upon field
verification that the petitioner is not validly continuing as
Helper. On 09.08.2024, the CDPO during her field visit,
having found the petitioner to be available in the center,
issued necessary instructions to her to not attend the
center. As regards honorarium, after proper field inquiry
conducted by the Lady Supervisor, it was found that the
petitioner had not been allowed by her to attend duty and
there was no valid instruction to her to discharge her duty
beyond 01.01.2024.
4. Heard Mr. Mithun Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State.
5. Mr. Das submits that pursuant to the letter dated
13.10.2023 of the Divisional Inspector, Dumduma, the
petitioner submitted application along with medical
certificate. The medical certificate itself was submitted on
14.02.2024, as the Medical Officer was not available being
on leave. Therefore, after much effort, she could obtain the
certificate from a Doctor of another Hospital. Further, she
was also not well. Mr. Das also argues that since the
petitioner had submitted her willingness on 06.10.2023,
the same ought to have been considered. Moreover, she
has been allowed to continue her duties but has not been
paid her remuneration, despite direction of this Court.
6. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned Addl.
Government Advocate would refer to the documents
enclosed to the counter affidavit showing that the
petitioner submitted the medical certificate of fitness on
15.02.2024, which was issued on 14.02.2024. The CDPO
also submitted a certificate towards her satisfactory
performance of duties on 15.02.2024. As per clarification
issued by the Government, these documents were
required to be submitted two months prior to the date of
attaining 60 years. The petitioner not having submitted
the same within the stipulated period cannot lay a valid
claim for continuance after attaining the age of 60 years.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as
Anganwadi Helper of Delta Paika Sahi Anganwadi Center.
Her date of birth is said to be 01.01.1964. As such, she
attained the age of 60 years on 01.01.2024. The
Government, vide notification dated 27.02.2019 enhanced
the age of disengagement of Anganwadi Helpers from 60
years to 62 years. The clarification dated 07.05.2022
issued by the Government in W & CD Department, inter
alia, is as follows:-
"An Anganwadi Worker willing to be
reengaged should give her willingness two
months ahead of her superannuation to
continue in service for further period of two
years. It means, that an application
submitted at belated date to continue service
after superannuation is unacceptable."
Be it noted that this clarification also holds good for
Anganwadi Helpers.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner, in response to
the letter dated 03.10.2023 of the Divisional Inspector,
Dumduma submitted an application expressing her
willingness to work upto 62 years by letter dated
06.10.2023. No fitness certificate issued by a Medical
Officer was attached to such application. The medical
certificate enclosed to the writ petition as also the counter
affidavit being issued by the Medical Officer UPHC Unit-
VIII bears the date 14.02.2024. Obviously, said certificate
could not have been submitted on 06.10.2023. There is
no other material placed before this Court to show that
the petitioner had submitted her application along with
medical certificate of fitness or performance certificate by
the CDPO along with her application. It is settled law that
unless the rules provide, there is no power conferred on
any authorities to extend the stipulated period or condone
the delay in submission of the application. In the case of
Kuntala Joshi v. State of Odisha [in WP(C) No.
23960/2024 disposed of on 21.10.2024], this Court has
taken a similar view.
9. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, this
Court is satisfied that the application for continuance as
Anganwadi Helper beyond 60 years was not submitted in
the proper form as required two months before the date of
completion of 60 years. The Sub-Collector cannot be
therefore, said to have committed any illegality in rejecting
the application.
10. Coming to the claim that the petitioner has been
working despite attaining the age of 60 years, this Court
takes note of the fact that by order dated 13.08.2024, this
Court as an interim measure directed that no other
person shall be engaged as Anganwadi Helper of the
center in question. Said interim order has continued from
time to time. An order was also passed by this Court on
03.09.2024 directing that since the petitioner is said to be
working, her remuneration should be paid followed by
another order passed on 08.10.2024 to the effect that
remuneration of the petitioner shall be released, if there is
no legal impediment. Thus, this Court firstly, never
directed the petitioner to continue as Anganwadi Helper
after completion of 60 years and secondly, the order
directing release of the remuneration was subject to non-
existence of any legal impediment.
11. From the facts narrated and the documents
enclosed to the counter affidavit, which have gone un-
rebutted, it is clear that the petitioner was disengaged on
completion of 60 years and was not validly allowed to
continue working thereafter. Rather, it is evident that the
Divisional Inspector had specifically asked her not to come
to the center. The CDPO also issued necessary directions
stating that she had never issued any such instruction
permitting the petitioner to work. On 09.08.2024, the
petitioner was found to be available in the center during
visit of the CDPO but the same, in the absence of any
other material, does not ipso facto prove that she was
working as claimed by her. The question of remuneration
would arise only when the petitioner is found to have
validly worked, which is not the case at hand.
12. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court
finds that the petitioner not having submitted her
application within the stipulated period to continue as
Anganwadi Helper after attaining the age of 60 years, was
rightly disengaged. Further there being no evidence of the
petitioner having validly worked beyond 01.01.2024, this
Court holds that she is not entitled to any remuneration.
13. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of
merit is therefore, dismissed.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 21-Feb-2025 14:59:09
