IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31584 of 2025 Sulagna Panigrahy …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 11.11.2025

01.

The grievance of the Petitioner has been scripted in the prayer column of the petition which reads as under:

“In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Quash the Show Cause Notice No. 2796 dated 19.08.2025 under Annexure-14.

2. Direct the 0pp.Parties to immediately transfer the Petitioner to her home district, Ganjam, in accordance with the provisions and guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha, specifically the provisions related to employees with disabilities.

3. Direct the Opp.Parties to grant the Petitioner full salary and service protection from 27.06.2018 to the present date, as the Petitioner was unable to perform her duties due to medical reasons directly related to her disability, and the Opp.Parties failure to accommodate her medical needs and transfer request. 4. Direct the Opp.Parties to grant all necessary reasonable accommodations and facilities to the Petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 , and other relevant laws, ensuring that she can continue her duties in a manner that is suitable to her physical condition.

5. Direct the Opp.Parties to treat the Petitioner in a just, equitable, and humane manner in all future administrative actions, and provide her with an opportunity to work under conditions that do not endanger her health and well-being.

6. Grant such further relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and fairness.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has been suffering from 45% ocular disability and she has been on contractual employment and now she sought to be removed. He draws attention of the Court to the show cause notice dated 19.08.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-14, to which counsel submits that a reply has already been made. He further argues that in all likelihood Petitioner would be discontinued from service and if at all she is continued, she would be shifted to some other district. So arguing, he seeks interference of this Court for granting appropriate relief.

3. Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for official OPs vehemently opposes the petition contending that there is no choate cause of action, inasmuch as what has been issued to the Petitioner is only a show cause notice; Petitioner herself says that she has submitted a reply and therefore, she should await decision making at the hands of appropriate authority. He also tells the Court that ordinarily in show cause cases Writ Court does not interfere.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. Petitioner is in contractual employment and that she has been issued a show cause notice as to why her service should not be dispensed with. Petitioner has already submitted her reply to the same. A decision is yet to be made by the jurisdictional authority keeping in mind all relevant factors. Thus, as on today, there is no decision taken and therefore, the cause of action is arguably inchoate. Learned AGA-Mr.Jee is right in telling the Court that a petition is not maintainable on an inchoate cause of action.

4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is to an extent right in telling the Court that a citizen need not wait till actual injury is inflicted on him. A genuinely apprehended injury is also a legal injury in writ jurisprudence, says Justice B.L. Hansaria in his treatise “Writ Jurisdiction under the Constitution”. Asking a litigant to await a final decision, is like asking a diabetic to wait till gangrene develops; that would