The Orissa High Court has set aside the resignation of a judicial officer who had quit service amid difficulties in securing continuous medical treatment for her autistic son, holding that the resignation was not voluntary and that her request to withdraw it had been made before the resignation was formally accepted by the competent authority.
A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra delivered the judgment on September 10, 2026. The Court quashed the Odisha Government’s January 2, 2023 notification accepting her resignation and directed her reinstatement, while denying back wages.
Background of the Case
Ipsita Mohanty had joined the Odisha Judicial Service in 2015. She was later posted at Bhubaneswar, where her son was receiving treatment and therapy for autism.
In July 2022, she was transferred to Hindol in Dhenkanal district. According to the judgment, the required medical facilities and trained therapists were not available there or in nearby areas. She subsequently requested a posting at Bhubaneswar for two-and-a-half years so that her son could continue receiving treatment.
Her representation dated September 5, 2022 was placed before the High Court’s Standing Committee but was deferred and was never finally considered or communicated to her.
With her son’s condition deteriorating, Mohanty submitted her resignation on November 29, 2022. The Full Court resolved to accept the resignation on December 20 and the matter was sent to the State Government for formal acceptance.
However, on December 21, she withdrew her resignation. The application reached the High Court the same day and was placed before the then Chief Justice on December 22. The Chief Justice directed that it be placed before the Full Court for consideration.
That did not happen. Meanwhile, the subsequent development was not communicated to the State Government or the Governor. The Governor approved the earlier recommendation on December 31, and the Government issued the notification accepting the resignation on January 2, 2023.
Court’s Observations
The Bench found that the circumstances leading to the resignation were significant. It noted that the petitioner had sought a transfer to Bhubaneswar because of her son’s treatment needs, but her request remained unanswered.
The Court observed:
“We are of the view that above are the material change in the circumstances which originally compelled the petitioner to tender her resignation.”
The Bench further held that her resignation could not be treated as a voluntary decision, given the circumstances in which it was submitted.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, in a separate concurring opinion, also examined when a judicial officer’s resignation becomes effective. He noted that under the applicable service framework, the resignation of a judicial officer becomes effective upon formal acceptance by the competent appointing authority.
The judgment recorded that Mohanty withdrew her resignation on December 21, 2022, whereas the competent appointing authority accepted it only on December 31, 2022. The Court held that the High Court’s recommendation could not itself be treated as acceptance by the appointing authority.
The Bench also relied on the principle that a prospective resignation can generally be withdrawn before it becomes effective, subject to the governing service rules.
Decision
The Orissa High Court held that Mohanty’s resignation dated November 29, 2022 “cannot be construed as voluntary” and found the January 2, 2023 notification relieving her from service to be legally unsustainable.
The Court accordingly quashed the notification and directed the authorities to reinstate her forthwith as Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-S.D.J.M.
The Court clarified that she would not receive back wages for the period she did not work. However, she would receive continuity of service from January 3, 2023, along with other consequential service benefits.
The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Ipsita Mohanty v. State of Orissa and Another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 15819 of 2023
Judges: Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
Decision Date: September 10, 2026
