Orissa High Court
Minati Devi vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 15 July, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.38522 of 2023
Minati Devi ....
Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Adv. along with
Mr. S. Das, Adv. for O.P.5
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
15.07.2025
Order No.
09. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order dtd.09.11.2023 so passed by
Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-15.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that challenging the
action of the Managing Committee in terminating the
services of the Petitioner, Petitioner approached the
Director, who happens to be the appellate authority. Vide
order dtd.15.12.2012 when claim of the Petitioner was
rejected and his prayer for reinstatement was also not
considered, challenging such order passed by the
// 2 //
Director, Petitioner approached this Court by filing in
W.P.(C) No.150 of 2013.
4.1. It is contended that this Court vide order
dtd.14.03.2023 under Annexure-14, while quashing the
order passed by the Director on 15.12.2012 remitted the
matter with the following finding:-
"The matter is remitted to the Director to hear the appeal
afresh. It is further directed that the Director shall render
specific findings backed by adequate reasons on each of
the issues so framed".
4.2. It is contended that on such remittance of the
matter, Director- Opposite Party No.2 though took up the
appeal, but without giving his finding on each of the
issues so framed by this Court, re-affirmed the earlier
order passed by his predecessor on 15.12.2012, which
was set aside by this Court in its order dtd.14.03.2023.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that since the earlier
order passed by this Court has not been followed in letter
and spirit by Opposite Party No.2, while disposing the
appeal afresh vide the impugned order dtd.09.11.2023
under Annexure-15, the same is not sustainable in the
eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been
issued since 29.11.2023, but no counter affidavit has
been filed either by the State or by the private Opposite
Parties. In absence of any such counter affidavit, this
Court is unable to know the stand of the said Opposite
// 3 //
Parties with regard to the challenge made to the
impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that the earlier order passed by Opposite Party No.2
on 15.12.2012 in rejecting the appeal filed by the
Petitioner in Appeal Case No.17 of 2010 was challenged
by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.150 of 2013. This Court
vide judgment dtd.14.03.2023. While quashing order
dtd.15.12.2012, this Court vide judgment dtd.14.03.2023
under Annexure-14 remitted the matter to the Director
with a direction to hear the appeal afresh and with a
further direction to give specific findings backed by
adequate reasons on each of the issues framed by this
Court. As found from the impugned order, such a
direction of this Court has not been followed at all.
Opposite Party No.2 by upholding the earlier order passed
by his predecessor on 15.12.2012, which was already set
aside by this Court, rejected the appeal once again.
6.1. Since the direction contained in judgment
dtd.14.03.2023 has not been followed by Opposite Party
No.2 while deciding the appeal afresh, this Court on that
ground only is inclined to quash the impugned order
dtd.09.11.2023, so passed under Annexure-15. While
quashing the same, this Court directs Opposite Party
No.2 to take a fresh decision in the appeal in the light of
// 4 //
the observation and directions contained in judgment
dtd.14.03.2023 of this Court.
6.2. Since the appeal is of the year, 2010, Opposite Party
No.2 is directed to dispose of the same by giving due
opportunity of hearing to all concerned as expeditiously
as possible, preferably by end of this year. In order to
avoid delay, all the parties are directed to appear before
the Director on or before 31.07.2025. On their
appearance, Director shall proceed and dispose of the
matter as directed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
