Orissa High Court
Jhunu Nayak vs Union Of India And Others ..... Opposite ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19775 of 2025
Jhunu Nayak ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Susanta Kumar Lenka
-versus-
Union of India and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Gopinath Sethi,
Senior Panel Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.07.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner have
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the
illegal removal from service dated 17.08.2015,
as per
Annexure-14, shall not be quashed; and as to
why a direction shall not be issued to Opposite
Party No.2 to regularize the service of the
deceased husband of the petitioner and to
disburse all consequential service benefits,
including family pension, and if the Opposite
Parties fail to show cause, or show insufficient
cause, or cause not to the satisfaction of this
Hon'ble Court, the writ petition may kindly be
allowed and any other order(s) as deemed just
and proper may also be passed in the interest
of Justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset,
contended that the husband of the Petitioner was initially
appointed on 18.08.1990 by the Opposite Party No.4 as a
Danger Building Worker. While working as such, the
husband of the Petitioner was entangled in a criminal case.
He further contended that on the basis of his involvement in
such criminal case, the service of the husband of the
Petitioner was terminated. In the meantime, the husband of
the Petitioner has faced trial and finally the husband of the
Petitioner was acquitted of all charges by the trial court vide
judgment dated 26.12.2023 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.,
G. Udayagiri in G.R. Case No.223 of 2012, corresponding
to Trial No.278(A) of 2013, which arises out of G.
Udayagiri P.S. Case No.74 dated 19.08.2012. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the
husband of the Petitioner has been acquitted, however four
days of his acquittal, he unfortunately passed away. In
support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the death certificate dated 27.01.2025 under
Annexure-16 to the writ petition. In course of his argument,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the
death of the Government employee, his wife has
approached the Opposite Party No.4 by filing a
representation on 03.03.2025 under Annexure-18 to the writ
petition with a prayer to reinstate her husband in service
notionally and pay all service benefits to her as her husband
has been acquitted in the criminal case. However, no
decision has been taken on such representation. Being
aggrieved by the inaction of the Opposite Party No.4, the
Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present
writ petition.
5. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the
Union of India-Opposite Parties, on the other hand,
contended that because of the involvement of the husband
of the Petitioner in a criminal case, he was removed from
service. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not committed
any illegality. He further submitted that acquittal in a
criminal case does not automatically entail reinstate in
service. However, taking into consideration the fact that the
Petitioner has already submitted a representation and the
same is stated to be pending before the Opposite Party No.4,
he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.4 to consider such representation in
accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the
background facts of the present case, further taking into
consideration the judgment of acquittal dated 26.12.2024
under Annexure-15, this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ petition at this stage admission by granting liberty
to the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the
Opposite Party No.2 taking therein all the grounds along
with all supporting documents within three weeks from
today and in such event the representation filed by the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider
the same in accordance with law by applying the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175; as well
as this Court in Smt. Nirmala Sahoo vs., State of Odisha &
others in W.P.(C) No.25947 of 2022 disposed of on
24.03.2023, by passing a speaking and reasoned order
within a period of three months from the date of filing of
such representation. It is further directed that in the event it
is found that there are no other legal impediments, the
Opposite Parties shall take necessary steps to reinstate the
deceased husband of the Petitioner in service notionally and
the financial benefits as is due and admissible to the
deceased husband of the Petitioner be calculated, sanctioned
and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner within two months
thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ
petition stands disposed of.
Digitally Signed Judge
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Debasis
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 28-Jul-2025 17:01:11
