Mamata Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 371 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mamata Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                 W.P.(C). No. 19656 of 2025


(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)

Mamata Nayak                       ......        Petitioner

                             -Versus-

State of Odisha & Others           ....   Opposite Parties
_______________________________________________________

  For Petitioner    : Mr. A.K.Pandey, Advocate,

   For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
                    Additional Government Advocate for
                    State
                    Mr. S.S.Mohanty,
                    Counsel for OLM

_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
     JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                         JUDGMENT

16th January, 2026

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the State

Mission Director-cum-CEO, Odisha Livelihood Mission

(OLM) is under challenge in the present writ application,

whereby the prayer of the petitioner for her

reinstatement in the post of Block Livelihoods

Coordinator-II (BLC-II) was rejected.

2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the

Panchayati Raj Department introduced a project called

Odisha Poverty Reduction Mission (TRIPTI). Pursuant to

an advertisement issued for engagement of Cluster

Coordinators under the said project, the petitioner

submitted her candidature, was selected and appointed

to work vide letter dated 15.12.2009. The project was

closed on 30.06.2015 and the engagement of the

petitioner and other persons similarly appointed was

terminated w.e.f. 29.05.2015. 199 such affected persons

approached this Court challenging their termination,

which was stayed. In the meantime, the Government, as

a matter of policy, decided to absorb the said employees

under the Odisha Livelihood Mission. Basing on skilled

mapping and personal interviews of all the candidates,

including the petitioner, she was selected and appointed

as Block Livelihood Coordinator (BLC) by executing an

agreement on 23.02.2016, valid for one year. Though

the contracts of other employees were subsequently

renewed, the petitioner's contract was not renewed for

reasons unknown to her. She approached the

authorities, but to no avail. The petitioner and one

Bikram Keshari Dhal approached this Court in W.P.(C).

No. 1161 of 2018.

Counter was filed by OLM, inter alia, stating that

the petitioner was posted at Kabisurjyanagar under the

administrative control of the BDO and the supervising

authority being the Project Director, DRDA. As per the

manual/guidelines of OLM, the Performance Appraisal

Report (PAR) is to be routed through the concerned BDO

and to be countersigned by the PD,DRDA. The petitioner

had submitted her PAR to the BDO, Kabisurjyanagar,

which was countersigned by the PD,DRDA.

The petitioner contends that the reference

purportedly made to her actually relates to another

person of the same name who was probably working in

Kabisurjyanagar. This Court, by order dated 24.07.2024

passed in the earlier writ application directed the

petitioner to approach the concerned authority

regarding the erroneous indication in her PAR, with

direction to said authority to look into the grievance and

take appropriate action regarding renewal of the

contract. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted

representation before the Opposite Party No.2, which

came to be disposed of by the impugned order.

According to the petitioner, the impugned order is based

on erroneous facts, inasmuch as it has been stated

therein that the petitioner, bypassing the reporting

authority has directly submitted her PAR before the

BDO. Secondly, the supervising authority having graded

the petitioner as 'good', the PD,DRDA could not have

graded her as 'below average'. In any case, no prior

notice or any opportunity to show cause regarding her

alleged poor performance was ever served upon her. The

writ application has been filed under the above facts

with the following prayer.

"The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned orders under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed/set-aside and as to why the agreement of the petitioner shall not be renewed afresh. If the opposite parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause the rule may be made absolute against the opposite parties.

AND

May pass any other appropriate direction(s)/ order(s) as this Hon'ble Court considers may deem just and proper.

AND For this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound ever pray."

Despite repeated opportunities, no counter affidavit was

filed by the OLM. Learned counsel appearing for OLM

however made oral submissions, which have been taken

into consideration.

3. Heard Mr. A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State

and Mr. S.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for OLM.

4. Mr. Pandey would submit that the impugned order

is bad being based on erroneous facts. The PAR of

another employee having the same name has been

considered. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as per

information obtained by her under the provisions of RTI

Act and brought on record by way of an affidavit filed in

this case, the petitioner submitted her PAR to the Block

Project Manager, who in turn forwarded the same to the

BDO, Bhubaneswar. According to Mr.Pandey, this is

entirely in consonance with the relevant guidelines. Mr.

Pandey, further argues that even otherwise, no

opportunity whatsoever having been granted to the

petitioner to show cause, her performance could not

have been treated as poor by the authorities, which

violates the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned AGA would submit that the dispute

pertains to the OLM and therefore, the State has no role

to play in the matter.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the OLM would

submit that the petitioner, bypassing her immediate

authority, submitted her PAR directly to the BDO which

is not permissible. That apart, her performance was also

poor as per the endorsement of the accepting authority.

The petitioner's contract was therefore, rightly not

renewed.

7. This Court finds that there seems to be some

confusion as regards submission of PAR. It is

mentioned in the impugned order that as per Clause

23.1 of the HR policy 2016, the self-appraisal is to be

submitted to the reporting authority, who in turn shall

record his remarks and transmit the same to the

reviewing authority. The reviewing authority shall then

record his remarks and transmit the same to the

accepting authority, who shall finally record his remarks

and transmit the same to the SMD-cum-CEO for

evaluation by the State Level Committee. Further, as per

Clause 23.2 of the manual, the reporting authority is the

BPM, the reviewing authority is the BDO and DMC-cum-

PD,DRDA is the accepting officer. The impugned order

further states that as per records, it was found that the

PAR of the petitioner for the period from 25.07.2016 to

24.12.2016 was reported, reviewed and accepted by the

BDO, Bhubaneswar, DPM, NRLM, Khordha and

PD,DRDA respectively. On such basis, it has been held

that she submitted her PAR directly to BDO bypassing

the BPM.

8. As already stated, the petitioner has already

brought on record the information obtained by her

under the RTI Act from PIO of Bhubaneswar Block vide

letter dated 22.07.2025. Said information categorically

mentions that the petitioner submitted her PAR for the

period from 25.07.2016 to 24.12.2016 to the BPM on

27.12.2016 and that the BPM forwarded the PAR for the

said period to BDO, Bhubaneswar on 08.01.2017.

Therefore, the information supplied to the petitioner

clearly runs contrary to the observations made by

Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order. Even

otherwise, it has not been demonstrated that the

information so obtained is incorrect in any manner. No

contrary material has also been placed before this Court

to disbelieve the information so obtained. Therefore, the

very basis of consideration of the petitioner's prayer by

Opp. Party No.2 appears to be erroneous.

9. It is stated that the petitioner's performance was

poor. While both BDO and BPM, NRLM Khordha have

rated the petitioner as 'good', the PD,DRDA has rated

her performance as 'below average' making certain

observations. It is trite that any adverse observation

affecting the employment of a person is required to be

communicated to him/her in order to grant him/her

opportunity to put forth his/her view thereon. In other

words, the principles of natural justice mandate that

before acting upon any adverse report against an

employee, he/she must be given an opportunity to

defend himself. Such an exercise does not appear to

have been undertaken in the present case which renders

the impugned action of non-renewal of contract

vulnerable. Even otherwise, when the immediate

authorities have certified the petitioner's performance as

good, it is not known as to on what basis the accepting

authority certified the same as below average. Nothing

has been placed before this Court to justify the said

assessment of the petitioner's performance.

10. It is not disputed that all other employees

similarly placed have since been absorbed in OLM.

There is no reason to single out the petitioner for

differential treatment and that too, without any justified

reason.

11. For the foregoing reason therefore, this Court is of

the considered view that the decision taken by the

authorities concerned to not renew the contract of the

petitioner on the ground of alleged poor performance

cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, the

Opposite Party No.2 not having considered the matter in

the above perspective, the impugned order is also

rendered unsustainable. The writ application therefore,

deserves to be allowed.

12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The

impugned order is hereby set aside. The Opp. Party

authorities ( Opp. Party No.2 ) are directed to renew the

contract with the petitioner notionally from the date

when contracts were renewed in respect of the other

employees. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not

be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period

however it shall be notionally counted towards other

service benefits. Necessary orders in this regard shall be

passed within two months from the date of production of

certified copy of this order by the petitioner.

...............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak