Orissa High Court
Mamata Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C). No. 19656 of 2025
(An Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India)
Mamata Nayak ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Pandey, Advocate,
For Opp. Party : Mr. S.N.Pattnaik,
Additional Government Advocate for
State
Mr. S.S.Mohanty,
Counsel for OLM
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
16th January, 2026 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the State Mission Director-cum-CEO, Odisha Livelihood Mission (OLM) is under challenge in the present writ application, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for her Page 1 of 10 reinstatement in the post of Block Livelihoods Coordinator-II (BLC-II) was rejected.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the Panchayati Raj Department introduced a project called Odisha Poverty Reduction Mission (TRIPTI). Pursuant to an advertisement issued for engagement of Cluster Coordinators under the said project, the petitioner submitted her candidature, was selected and appointed to work vide letter dated 15.12.2009. The project was closed on 30.06.2015 and the engagement of the petitioner and other persons similarly appointed was terminated w.e.f. 29.05.2015. 199 such affected persons approached this Court challenging their termination, which was stayed. In the meantime, the Government, as a matter of policy, decided to absorb the said employees under the Odisha Livelihood Mission. Basing on skilled mapping and personal interviews of all the candidates, including the petitioner, she was selected and appointed as Block Livelihood Coordinator (BLC) by executing an agreement on 23.02.2016, valid for one year. Though the contracts of other employees were subsequently Page 2 of 10 renewed, the petitioner's contract was not renewed for reasons unknown to her. She approached the authorities, but to no avail. The petitioner and one Bikram Keshari Dhal approached this Court in W.P.(C). No. 1161 of 2018.
Counter was filed by OLM, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was posted at Kabisurjyanagar under the administrative control of the BDO and the supervising authority being the Project Director, DRDA. As per the manual/guidelines of OLM, the Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) is to be routed through the concerned BDO and to be countersigned by the PD,DRDA. The petitioner had submitted her PAR to the BDO, Kabisurjyanagar, which was countersigned by the PD,DRDA.
The petitioner contends that the reference purportedly made to her actually relates to another person of the same name who was probably working in Kabisurjyanagar. This Court, by order dated 24.07.2024 passed in the earlier writ application directed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority regarding the erroneous indication in her PAR, with Page 3 of 10 direction to said authority to look into the grievance and take appropriate action regarding renewal of the contract. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation before the Opposite Party No.2, which came to be disposed of by the impugned order. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is based on erroneous facts, inasmuch as it has been stated therein that the petitioner, bypassing the reporting authority has directly submitted her PAR before the BDO. Secondly, the supervising authority having graded the petitioner as 'good', the PD,DRDA could not have graded her as 'below average'. In any case, no prior notice or any opportunity to show cause regarding her alleged poor performance was ever served upon her. The writ application has been filed under the above facts with the following prayer.
"The petitioner therefore, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned orders under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed/set-aside and as to why the agreement of the petitioner shall not be renewed afresh. If the opposite parties failed to show cause or shown insufficient cause the rule may be made absolute against the opposite parties.
AND Page 4 of 10 May pass any other appropriate direction(s)/ order(s) as this Hon'ble Court considers may deem just and proper.
AND For this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound ever pray."
Despite repeated opportunities, no counter affidavit was filed by the OLM. Learned counsel appearing for OLM however made oral submissions, which have been taken into consideration.
3. Heard Mr. A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mr. S.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for OLM.
4. Mr. Pandey would submit that the impugned order is bad being based on erroneous facts. The PAR of another employee having the same name has been considered. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, as per information obtained by her under the provisions of RTI Act and brought on record by way of an affidavit filed in this case, the petitioner submitted her PAR to the Block Project Manager, who in turn forwarded the same to the BDO, Bhubaneswar. According to Mr.Pandey, this is entirely in consonance with the relevant guidelines. Mr. Pandey, further argues that even otherwise, no Page 5 of 10 opportunity whatsoever having been granted to the petitioner to show cause, her performance could not have been treated as poor by the authorities, which violates the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned AGA would submit that the dispute pertains to the OLM and therefore, the State has no role to play in the matter.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the OLM would submit that the petitioner, bypassing her immediate authority, submitted her PAR directly to the BDO which is not permissible. That apart, her performance was also poor as per the endorsement of the accepting authority. The petitioner's contract was therefore, rightly not renewed.
7. This Court finds that there seems to be some confusion as regards submission of PAR. It is mentioned in the impugned order that as per Clause 23.1 of the HR policy 2016, the self-appraisal is to be submitted to the reporting authority, who in turn shall record his remarks and transmit the same to the reviewing authority. The reviewing authority shall then Page 6 of 10 record his remarks and transmit the same to the accepting authority, who shall finally record his remarks and transmit the same to the SMD-cum-CEO for evaluation by the State Level Committee. Further, as per Clause 23.2 of the manual, the reporting authority is the BPM, the reviewing authority is the BDO and DMC-cum- PD,DRDA is the accepting officer. The impugned order further states that as per records, it was found that the PAR of the petitioner for the period from 25.07.2016 to 24.12.2016 was reported, reviewed and accepted by the BDO, Bhubaneswar, DPM, NRLM, Khordha and PD,DRDA respectively. On such basis, it has been held that she submitted her PAR directly to BDO bypassing the BPM.
8. As already stated, the petitioner has already brought on record the information obtained by her under the RTI Act from PIO of Bhubaneswar Block vide letter dated 22.07.2025. Said information categorically mentions that the petitioner submitted her PAR for the period from 25.07.2016 to 24.12.2016 to the BPM on 27.12.2016 and that the BPM forwarded the PAR for the Page 7 of 10 said period to BDO, Bhubaneswar on 08.01.2017. Therefore, the information supplied to the petitioner clearly runs contrary to the observations made by Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order. Even otherwise, it has not been demonstrated that the information so obtained is incorrect in any manner. No contrary material has also been placed before this Court to disbelieve the information so obtained. Therefore, the very basis of consideration of the petitioner's prayer by Opp. Party No.2 appears to be erroneous.
9. It is stated that the petitioner's performance was poor. While both BDO and BPM, NRLM Khordha have rated the petitioner as 'good', the PD,DRDA has rated her performance as 'below average' making certain observations. It is trite that any adverse observation affecting the employment of a person is required to be communicated to him/her in order to grant him/her opportunity to put forth his/her view thereon. In other words, the principles of natural justice mandate that before acting upon any adverse report against an employee, he/she must be given an opportunity to Page 8 of 10 defend himself. Such an exercise does not appear to have been undertaken in the present case which renders the impugned action of non-renewal of contract vulnerable. Even otherwise, when the immediate authorities have certified the petitioner's performance as good, it is not known as to on what basis the accepting authority certified the same as below average. Nothing has been placed before this Court to justify the said assessment of the petitioner's performance.
10. It is not disputed that all other employees similarly placed have since been absorbed in OLM. There is no reason to single out the petitioner for differential treatment and that too, without any justified reason.
11. For the foregoing reason therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the decision taken by the authorities concerned to not renew the contract of the petitioner on the ground of alleged poor performance cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 not having considered the matter in the above perspective, the impugned order is also Page 9 of 10 rendered unsustainable. The writ application therefore, deserves to be allowed.
12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Opp. Party authorities ( Opp. Party No.2 ) are directed to renew the contract with the petitioner notionally from the date when contracts were renewed in respect of the other employees. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the said period however it shall be notionally counted towards other service benefits. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
...............................
Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 16-Jan-2026 17:34:10 Page 10 of 10