[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smt. Dondapati Yamini vs State Of Orissa And Others ..... ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.19134 of 2025
Smt. Dondapati Yamini ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Rama Krishna Bisoi
-versus-
State Of Orissa and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
16.03.2026
Order No.
02. 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 ardently
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
graciously pleased to direct the Opp. Party No.3
to extend the benefit of duty pay salary for the
retrenchment period from 1.4.2001 to 31.7.2003
by regularizing the services of her late husband
for all service and financial benefits as has been
extended in favour of Santosh Kumar Hota as
per order dtd.7.5.2008 in O.A No.1019/2004 of
Ls. Tribunal which has been confirmed by this
Hon'ble Court vide order dtd.15.7.2015 in W.P
(C) No.11247/2009 within a time stipulation as
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
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 case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11247 of 2009 in
the matter of State of Orissa and others v. Santosh Kumar Hota
decided on 15.07.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further
submitted that challenging her illegal termination from service the
Petitioner initially approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal.
The Administrative Tribunal held such termination to be illegal and
directed the Opposite Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in service.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that
though the Petitioner was reinstated in service, however, she has not
been paid her salary for the period for which she remain out of
service due to the error committed by the Opposite Parties in
illegally terminating the Petitioner. In the aforesaid context, learned
counsel for the Petitioner referred to the order dated 15.09.2025,
which has been filed at Annexure-8 to the writ petition.
5. In course of the hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner also
referred to the order of the learned Tribunal in a similar matter in
O.A. No.98 of 2016 disposed of on 12.03.2018 at Annexure-10 to
the writ petition and submitted before this Court that similar benefit
has already been extend in favour of a similar situated person on the
basis of the direction of the Tribunal. He further contended that so
far the present Petitioner is concerned, he happens to be the wife of
the deceased employee, namely T. Tirupati Dash, who was working
as a Jr. Clerk in the office of the Headmaster, S.N. Bidyapitha,
Tanganapali. Further, referring to the letter at Annexure-9 dated
06.11.2015 of the DEO, Ganjam, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted before this Court that the case of the husband of
the Petitioner has already been recommended to the Government for
grant of the arrear salary as is due and admissible to the Petitioner
and the same has been quantified and mentioned as Rs.1,36,746/-
(Rupees One Lakh Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six).
By virtue of the letter under Annexure-9 the DEO has sought for
funds from the Government to pay of the dues as is due and
admissible to the Petitioner and similarly situated other employees.
6. Although the DEO, Ganjam has written a letter to the
Government in the year 2015 seeking funds to pay the dues of the
Petitioner and similarly situated other persons, no steps have been
taken so far to ensure that the Petitioner is disbursed with the dues as
has been claimed by her. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the
Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition.
7. 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 letter dated 06.11.2015, it appears that the
matter is pending before the Government for taking a final decision.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State further
submitted that in the event the matter is still pending before the
Government and no decision has been taken on the letter dated
06.11.2015 of the DEO, Ganjam, as per Annexure-9, he will have no
objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to
consider the grievance of the Petitioner in accordance with law
within a stipulated period of time.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, further taking note of the fact that the husband of the
Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,36,746/- (Rupees One Lakh
Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Six) as per the
recommendation of the DEO, Ganjam as per letter dated 06.11.2015
at Annexure-9 and such amount having not been paid to the
Petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the deceased government
employee, namely T. Tirupati Dash, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ petition by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to
redress the grievance of the Petitioner and to pass necessary orders
directing the DEO, Ganjam to disburse the dues in favour of the
Petitioner as has been indicated in letter dated 06.11.2015 along with
interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of today's order.
9. 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: 18-Mar-2026 10:02:20
