Niharika Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1210 Ori

Orissa High Court

Niharika Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026

Author: A.K. Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      WP(C) No.19381 of 2025

An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India

 Niharika Panda                           .....                Petitioner
                                                  Represented by Adv. -
                                                  Shashanka Shekhar
                                                  Patra


                               -versus-

 State Of Odisha & Ors.               .....            Opposite Parties
                                                  Represented by Adv. -
                                                  Mr. S.Behera, A.G.A.
                                                  Mr. Bharat Jalli, Adv.
                                                  for O.P.-4


                      CORAM:
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                    MOHAPATRA

        ______________________________________________
         Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 10.02.2026
         ______________________________________________


  A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned

Additional Government Advocate. Perused the writ application as well

as the documents annexed thereto.

2. By filing the present application, the Petitioner has made the

following prayer-:

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 Application;

(ii) direct / order the Opp.Parties to consider the abovementioned case of the Petitioner and thereby direct the Opp.Parties to release the maternity leave salary for the period from 01.11.2023 to 27.04.2024 within a stipulated period, as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court for 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."

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the

Petitioner was appointed by the Opposite Party No.3 under

Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme vide order dated 02.05.2018.

Accordingly, the Petitioner joined in the vacant post of Clerk at

Ratnakundu High School in the district of Balasore on 25.05.2018.

While working in the abovenamed school in the post of a Clerk, the

Petitioner sought for maternity leave for the period from 01.11.2023 to

27.04.2024 by virtue of her application dated 17.10.2023.

4. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner submitted her joining

report along with a certificate from the treating Doctor with regard to

mental and physical fitness of the Petitioner dated 05.04.2024. After

acceptance of the joining report, the Petitioner joined in her duty on

28.04.2024. After joining in her duty, the Petitioner and the headmaster

of the school asked for sanction of the maternity leave availed by the

Petitioner from 01.11.2023 to 27.04.2024. The District Education

Officer, Balasore-Opposite Party No.3 allowed the maternity leave for a

period of 90 days without any consolidated pay. Being aggrieved by

such conduct of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner has approached

this Court by filing the present writ application.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument

referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Smt. Anindita Mishra in W.A. No.1074 of

2023 disposed of vide judgment dated 24.06.2025. In the abovenoted

Writ Appeal the order passed by the Single Judge Bench dated

30.08.2022 in WPC(OAC) No.1680 of 2017 was under scrutiny by the

Division Bench. The issue involved in the abovenoted Writ Appeal was

with regard to grant of maternity leave to the respondent in the

abovenoted appeal. Although, the learned Single Judge allowed the

prayer of the Petitioner-respondent, however, the State-Opposite Parties

preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Hon'ble learned Single

Judge. The Hon'ble Division bench by virtue of a detailed judgment

and referring to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

found that the appeal preferred by the State-Opposite Parties is devoid

of merit and accordingly the writ appeal was dismissed.

6. While dismissing the Writ Appeal, the Hon'ble Division Bench

has referred to the judgment in Dr. Kabita Yadav vs. Secretary,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department reported in (2024) 1

SCC 421. In the abovenoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it

has been mandated that even contractual employees are entitled to the

maternity leave benefit. It has been specifically held that in the matter

of maternity leave it does not matter whether the employees concerned

is a regular employee or a contractual employee. In para-3.4 of the

judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Wirt Appeal has referred

to a similar view taken by the several High Courts of this country.

Thereafter, the Hon'ble Division Bench in Para-3.5 of the judgment has

quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Kabita

Yadav's case (supra) to the extent that the maternity leave which was

earlier kept at 90 days has been enhanced to 180 days. In view of the

aforesaid settled legal position, learned counsel for the Petitioner

contended that the D.E.O., Balasore should have allowed the

application of the Petitioner for grant of maternity leave from

01.04.2023 to 24.07.2024 which is 180 days as has been mandated by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Dr. Kabita Yadav's case

(supra).

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that

although the State-Opposite Parties have not filed a detailed counter

affidavit, however, on perusal of the impugned order, it was submitted

that the D.E.O., Balasore, Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any

illegality in passing order dated 29.03.2025. Further, referring to the

impugned order at Annexure-5. Learned counsel for the State

contended that in view of the provision contained in Odisha Education

(Leave of Teachers and other Members of the Staff of Aided

Educational Institutions) Rule,1977 and Section 10 read with Section

27 of the Odisha Education Act,1969, the maternity leave as applied by

the Petitioner was confined from 01.11.2023 to 29.01.2024 i.e. for a

period of 90 days without any consolidated pay fixed for her. In view of

the aforesaid provisions as has been referred in the impugned letter

dated 29.03.2025 at Annexure-5, learned Counsel for the State

appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties contended before this Court

that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in granting

90 days maternity leave in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly,

learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application

is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels

appearing for respective parties, on a careful examination of the

background facts as well as the documents annexed to the present writ

application, this Court observes that the only issue involved in the

present writ application is with regard to disallowing 90 days of the

maternity leave as prayed for by the Petitioner. The Opposite Party

No.3 by virtue of the impugned order dated 29.03.2025, at Annexure-5,

has allowed 90 days maternity leave in favour of the present Petitioner,

while rejecting the balance 90 days as has been prayed for by the

Petitioner. Thus, the issue which this Court is required to consider is as

to whether the conduct of the Opposite Parties in disallowing 90 days of

maternity leave is legal and valid.

9. In the aforesaid context, this Court examined the judgment of

Hon'ble Division bench in State of Odisha & Anr. Vs. Smt. Anindita

Mishra bearing W.A. No. 1074 of 2023 decided on 24.06.2025. An

identical question was being adjudicated by the Hon'ble Division

Bench in the abovenoted Writ Appeal. After a detailed discussion of the

factual as well as the legal position, the Hon'ble Division Bench has

arrived at a conclusion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge

Bench allowing the maternity leave to the extent of 180 days i.e. from

17.08.2016 to 12.02.2017 suffers from no illegality and that the leave is

not unreasonable. Finally, the Hon'ble Division Bench has affirmed the

impugned order of the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal.

Additionally, it is also pertinent to mention that the State has not

disputed the fact that the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has

attained finality and that the State-Opposite Parties have not preferred

any appeal against the same.

10. Reverting back to the present writ application, on perusal of the

records, it appears that the Petitioner in the present writ application

claimed the maternity leave from 01.11.2023 to 27.04.2024 along with

medical certificate. So far, the medical documents are concerned, it

appears that those are not disputed by the Opposite Parties, inasmuch

as, the Opposite Party No.3, D.E.O., while allowing the half of the

maternity leave sought for, has never objected to the medical

documents or raised any issue with regard to validity or genuineness of

such medical documents. Thus, the fact that the leave application was

supported by proper medical documents is not disputed by the Opposite

Parties. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court is required to

decide the conduct of the Opposite Party No.3 in rejecting 90 days of

the maternity leave out of the 180 days as has been applied for the

Petitioner. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra and the same has

been directly answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in

Smt. Anindita Mishra's case (supra).

11. Thus, by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division

Bench in Smt. Anindita Mishra's case (supra), this Court is of the

considered view that the impugned rejection order at Annexure-5 dated

29.03.2025 is unsustainable in law. Moreover, such view of this Court

is supported by the policy decision of the Government S & M.E.

Department dated 12.03.2024, wherein the Government of Odisha has

allowed the maximum period of 180 days towards maternity leave to

female employees. Though the same is confined up to two surviving

children. Although the impugned rejection order was passed on

29.03.2025 by then the resolution dated 12.03.2024 was available to the

Opposite Parties. However, the policy laid down by virtue of such

resolution dated 12.03.2024 has not been applied to the fact of the

Petitioner's case. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the analysis

of the factual background of the case, this Court has no hesitation in

holding that the impugned rejection order under Annexure-5 is illegal

and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. The Opposite Parties are

directed to grant 180 days of maternity leave with consequential

financial benefits to the Petitioner in terms of the judgment in Smt.

Anindita Mishra's Case (supra) as well as in terms of resolution dated

12.03.2024 at Annexure-6 to the writ application, within a period of six

weeks from the date of communication of a copy of the judgment.

12. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed. However, there

shall be no order as to costs.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10th February, 2026 Rubi, Jr. Stenographer