[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Gitanjali Meher vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7434 of 2026
Gitanjali Meher ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Pradeep Kumar
Mahapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.03.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application
as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances as narrated above it is prayed
that this Hon'ble Court be graciously be pleased
to admit the Writ Petition and issue Rule Nisi or
any other appropriate Writs against the Opp.
parties calling upon the opposite parties to show
cause as to why they shall not be directed to
sanction annual increments of the petitioner
after regularising the service by sanctioning
leave on medical grounds for the period from
26.06.2012 to 04.05.2017 with all consequential
financial and service benefits;
And
And, if the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or
show insufficient cause, make the said Rule
absolute by directing the Opp. parties to
sanction annual increments of the petitioner
after regularising the service by sanctioning
leave on medical grounds for the period from
26.06.2012 to 04.05.2017 with all consequential
financial and service benefits.
And/or issue any other appropriate Writ/Writs,
order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit
and proper in the fitness of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner, who is working as Asst. Teacher at New Upper
Primary School, Dhanbasa under the DEO, Subarnapur-Opposite
Party No.5. He further contended that initially the Petitioner joined
as a Swechasevi Sikhya Sahayak on 03.01.2005. Thereafter, her
service was regularized as a primary school teacher w.e.f.
19.05.2011 in a regular scale of pay. While the Petitioner was
discharging her duty, she remained on leave, initially from
26.06.2012 and later extended till 11.04.2017, on medical grounds.
After the Petitioner was declared fit, she joined in service with a
medical fitness certificate.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended
that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ petition is
that the aforesaid leave period which was on medical ground has not
been regularized as of now. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel
for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the letter of the
Deputy Director to the Government dated 08.12.2022 at Annxure-7,
submitted before this Court that although the Government has been
moved by the Deputy Director, Elementary Education for taking a
decision on the issue of regularization of the leave period of the
Petitioner, no decision has been taken on such request of the Deputy
Director. He further contended that as a consequence of non-
regularization of the aforesaid medical period the Petitioner is not
getting consequential benefits like annual increment for which she
has also approached the BEO, Rengali-Opposite Party No.4 by filing
a detailed representation on 08.08.2025 at Annexure-11 to the writ
petition. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties,
the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, taking
into consideration the prayer made in the writ petition, further
keeping in view the nature of grievance involved in the present writ
petition, he further submitted that in the event this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision with regard to regularization
of the leave period of the Petitioner, as has been requested vide letter
dated 08.12.2022 at Annexure-7 to the writ petition, he will have no
objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submissions and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further taking note of the nature of the dispute involved
in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of
the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite
Party No.1 to take a decision on the letter of the Deputy Director
dated 08.12.2022 at Annexure-7 in accordance with law and
applicable Rules within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of today's order. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the competent authority as
well as the Petitioner by the office of the Opposite Party No.1 within
ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2026 10:13:40
