Cuttack: A mother’s struggle to secure proper treatment for her autistic teenage son has prompted Orissa high court to restore the judicial career she had given up in desperation, holding that her resignation should not have been accepted after she had withdrawn it.A division bench of Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra, in a judgment delivered on Sept 10, directed the state govt to reinstate judicial officer Ipsita Mohanty as additional civil judge (junior division)-cum-SDJM. The court, however, denied her back wages while granting continuity of service and other consequential benefits from Jan 3, 2023.The division bench took note of the deeply personal circumstances behind her decision, observing, “Real life situations are complex and each one fights his/her battles in unique ways.”The judges said her decision to withdraw the resignation, considering her son’s medical needs and her own future livelihood, was what “a rational and prudent person would have done”.Mohanty had resigned from the judicial service on Nov 29, 2022, after repeated requests for a posting in Bhubaneswar failed to yield results. Her 15-year-old son suffers from autism spectrum disorder and other neurological problems requiring long-term treatment, rehabilitation and regular therapy.Earlier, her transfer to Hindol in Dhenkanal district in July 2022 had made it difficult to ensure the specialised care her son needed. She told the court that the lack of specialised facilities and trained therapists in Hindol and Dhenkanal had adversely affected his condition. She subsequently sought a posting in Bhubaneswar for two-and-a-half years, primarily to ensure access to treatment.But barely three weeks after tendering her resignation, Mohanty changed her mind. Through a letter dated Dec 21, 2022, she requested the HC authorities to reconsider her case and not accept her resignation. Meanwhile, the Full Court had already recommended forwarding the resignation to the govt on Dec 20, even as the state accepted it on Jan 2, 2023, and relieved her from service with effect from Jan 3.The bench found that the withdrawal came before the competent appointing authority accepted it. “There was no valid letter of resignation before the competent authority to consider for acceptance,” it held, declaring the acceptance “null and void”.The judges noted that Mohanty continued working and drawing her salary after submitting her resignation and that the delay in processing her withdrawal was not attributable to her. “She cannot be punished for the same particularly when she acted in consonance with statutory provisions and applicable guidelines,” the court observed.Quashing the govt notification, the court held that her resignation “cannot be construed as voluntary” and ordered her “forthwith” reinstatement.
