Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 227
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Sashikanta Mishra, J
SAROJINI SAHOO – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
WP(C) 19547 / 2024
M/s. M. Das, Advocate, Mr. S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Government Advocate
Procedural compliance is essential for service extension applications; failure to submit within the stipulated timeframe results in lawful disengagement.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Service Law - The petitioner sought to quash a rejection letter regarding her extension as Anganwadi Helper, citing a government notification increasing the retirement age from 60 to 62 years - The court found that the petitioner failed to submit her application within the required two-month period prior to her retirement, as mandated by government guidelines. (Paras 2, 10, 12)
(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that applications for continuance must adhere strictly to procedural requirements, and that there is no authority to condone delays unless explicitly provided by rules. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Findings of Court - The court confirmed that the petitioner was disengaged upon reaching the age limit and had not provided valid evidence of continued service. (Paras 12, 13)
(D) Issues - The main issues included the validity of the rejection of the petitioner's application for extension and whether she had continued working beyond the age limit. (Paras 10, 12) (E) Ratio Decidendi - The court ruled that the petitioner did not comply with the necessary procedural requirements for application submission, thus the rejection of her request was lawful. (Paras 10, 13) (F) Result - The writ petition is dismissed. (Para 14) (G) Parties involved: Petitioner, Sub-Collector, CDPO.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of application submission (Para 6) |
| 2. counterarguments regarding application submission (Para 7) |
| 3. verification of petitioner's claims (Para 8) |
| 4. discrepancies in application dates (Para 9) |
| 5. law on application submission timing (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
21.02.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:-
“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 Writ Application.
(ii) quash the Letter No.215 dt 12.03.2024, issued by the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No.2 by concurrently holding the same as bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law and thereby direct the Opp. Party No.2 to extend the service period of petitioner as Anganwadi helper of Kapileswar-2 Anganwadi Center under CDPO (Urban-I), Bhubaneswar in 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;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Helper of Kapileswar-2 Angawadi Center after going through a regular selection process. Her date of retirement on attaining the age of 60 years was 01.01.2024. In the meantime, by notification dated 28.02.2019, the Government in Department of Women and Child Development decided to increase the age of disengagement of Anganwadi Helpers from 60 years to 62 years. Said notification was applicable for those retiring from the month of January, 2019 onwards. The Divisional Inspector of Samantarapur Division by letter dated 01.10.2023 informed the petitioner of her impending date of superannuation and solicited application from her along with fitness certificate for her continuance beyond 60 years. The petitioner submitted her willingness along with medical certificate on 16.10.2023 before the CDPO. However, by letter dated 12.03.2024, the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar rejected the request for reengagement of the petitioner on the ground that she had not submitted her willingness two months ahead of her superannuation as per clarification issued by the Government vide letter dated 07.05.2022. Though the petitioner completed the age of sixty years on 01.01.2024, she claims to have continued as Anganwadi Helper in the center but was not paid remuneration for the same. She submitted representation to the C.D.P.O. in this regard on 15.07.2024. The Anganwadi Worker of the Center, by letter dated 23.07.2024 also certified that the petitioner is continuing as Helper in the said center. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court in the instant writ petition.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDPO (Opp. Party No.3), inter alia, stating that the petitioner was given an opportunity well before the stipulated two- months period, as per the letter dated 01.10.2023. The claim that she submitted her application on 16.10.2023 is incorrect. The attached medical certificate appears to be tampered with, and the petitioner actually submitted an undated application along with a medical fitness certificate on 31.01.2024. Therefore, her application could not have been submitted before this date. Since the petitioner applied after reaching 60 years of age, she was ineligible for an extension under government guidelines. The Sub-Collector’s rejection of her representation was lawful. Additionally, in her representation dated 15.03.2024, she admitted to have failed to submit the required documents, including her willingness certificate, within the prescribed time and sought for extension despite the delay.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner has made false claims about her continuance beyond 60 years. She has already been disengaged upon reaching the age limit, making her represe
