Back
reinstates judge who resigned to care for autistic son, ruling it not
In a landmark decision that underscores the humane dimensions of judicial service, the has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer who resigned under the crushing weight of caring for her autistic son. A division bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra quashed the State’s notification accepting the resignation, holding that it was not but driven by and . The Court also found that the officer had withdrawn her resignation before it was formally accepted by the , the Governor of Odisha.
A Mother’s Struggle Against Systemic Gaps
Ipsita Mohanty, an Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM, was first posted at Bhubaneswar, where she could provide her son—diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in —with the medical treatment and therapy he desperately needed. Her son, now 15, suffers from severe autism, including self-harming behaviors, and requires constant care. In , she was transferred to Hindol in Dhenkanal district, a place where specialized treatment for autistic children was virtually non-existent.
Despite repeated representations seeking a transfer back to Bhubaneswar for two and a half years, the High Court’s deferred her plea on , without ever communicating a final decision. As her son’s health deteriorated from the lack of proper care, Mohanty, feeling isolated and without family support, tendered her resignation on .
The Critical Sequence: Withdrawal Before Acceptance
The of the resolved on , to recommend acceptance of the resignation to the . However, the very next day—December 21—Mohanty withdrew her resignation, citing a change in circumstances and the advice of doctors that her son required long-term treatment. Her withdrawal application was promptly forwarded by the District Judge, Dhenkanal, and received by the High Court registry the same day.
The then Chief Justice on December 22 directed that the withdrawal be placed before the . But crucially, this development was never communicated to the or the Governor. On December 31, the Governor approved the earlier recommendation, and on , the State issued the notification relieving Mohanty from service. Only then did the Chief Justice, learning of the notification, unilaterally decide not to place the withdrawal before the , reasoning that the officer was no longer in service.
Arguments: vs. Procedural Finality
Mohanty, represented by advocate , argued that her resignation was not but forced by the impossible choice between her son’s health and her career. She contended that since she had withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance by the (the Governor), the acceptance was void. She relied on the ’s decision in , which recognized the unique struggles of judicial mothers.
Opposite Party No.2, the Registrar General, through Senior Advocate , argued that the ’s resolution on December 20 amounted to acceptance, leaving no scope for withdrawal. They cited , but the Court distinguished it on facts.
Legal Analysis: When Does a Resignation Become Effective?
The Court delved into the constitutional scheme governing judicial officers. Under Article 233 and 234 of the , the Governor is the for Civil Judges. The High Court, though vested with control under Article 235, is not the . Therefore, the ’s recommendation did not constitute acceptance; only the Governor’s formal approval could terminate employment.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, in his concurring opinion, drew a clear distinction between constitutional judges ( and High Court judges) whose resignations are upon communication to the President, and subordinate judicial officers governed by service rules. Citing , he reiterated that “in the absence of a , a can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.” Since Mohanty withdrew her resignation on December 21—before the Governor’s approval on December 31 and the notification on January 2—the resignation was effectively nullified.
The Court also examined , which allows the to permit withdrawal if the resignation was tendered for compelling reasons not reflecting on integrity, and if there is a . The record showed no departmental or vigilance proceedings against Mohanty, and she had continued working after tendering her resignation.
Key Observations
“The resignation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2022 was not at all and it was under compelling situation and .”
“Real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways. Her ruminations and second thoughts… led to her withdrawing the resignation—what a rational and prudent person would have done.”
“The resignation given by the petitioner on 29.11.2022 having been withdrawn on 21.12.2022, much before the date of acceptance by the competent , i.e., 02.01.2023, there was before the to consider for acceptance.”
Court’s Decision: Reinstatement Without
The High Court declared the resignation invalid and quashed the notification as “.” It directed the authorities to reinstate Mohanty forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-SDJM. While she will not receive for the period she did not render service—having filed an affidavit stating she would not claim financial benefits—the Court granted her from , along with all consequential service benefits from that date. The was allowed with no order as to costs.
The judgment sends a powerful message about the need for administrative sensitivity toward judicial officers facing extraordinary personal crises, particularly those caring for children with severe medical conditions. It affirms that a resignation extracted by cannot be used to bar an officer’s return, especially when withdrawal occurs before formal acceptance.
