Back
Reinstates Judicial Officer Ipsita Mohanty Forced to Resign Over Autistic Son
The has ordered the reinstatement of a judicial officer who was compelled to resign after being transferred to a location where she could not access specialized therapy for her autistic son. A division bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the resignation was not voluntary but submitted , and quashed the termination order.
A Mother’s Struggle for Her Child
Ipsita Mohanty joined the in February 2015 and served at multiple postings. Her only son, who has autism since 2016, required long-term treatment and therapy. While she was posted in Bhubaneswar, she could arrange the necessary care. In March 2022, she requested to be retained in Bhubaneswar, but the High Court transferred her to Hindol in the Dhenkanal judgeship in July 2022.
After joining Hindol, Mohanty found that adequate autism treatment facilities and trained therapists were unavailable in the area. Her son's health deteriorated. She submitted a detailed representation on , seeking a transfer back to Bhubaneswar for two and a half years. The discussed and deferred the representation on , but never took a final decision.
Resignation
With her son's condition worsening and no response to her request, Mohanty tendered her resignation on , citing her inability to provide proper medical care. The resolved to recommend acceptance of the resignation on , and the matter was sent to the Governor.
However, the next day, on , Mohanty withdrew her resignation after her doctor advised that her son required long-term continuous care, and she realized she was the only family member able to provide it. The then Chief Justice directed that the withdrawal be placed before the . But this development was never communicated to the state government or the Governor.
Withdrawal Ignored, Termination Approved
Unaware of the withdrawal, the Governor accepted the resignation on , and the issued a relieving order on , effective from . Mohanty challenged the order before the High Court.
The court found that the failed to inform the government about the withdrawal request and the Chief Justice's direction. Justice Mishra, in a concurring opinion, held that a by the , and since Mohanty withdrew before the Governor's approval, the acceptance was .
Court’s Verdict: Reinstatement with Continuity
The bench observed,
"We have already held that the resignation of the petitioner submitted on
was not voluntarily in nature but it was submitted under compelling situations and in duress involved."
The court noted that Mohanty had a
and no
were pending.
Justice Mishra empathetically remarked,
"Real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways. Her ruminations and second thoughts brought about by well-meaning people around her and the prospects of not getting a commensurate job of repute, respect and remuneration in near future which would have compromised both her survival and her ability to look after her child that led to her withdrawing the resignation would what a
would have done."
The court quashed the termination order and directed the opposite parties to reinstate Mohanty as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. She will get from and all , but no back wages under the "" principle.
