Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha & Others vs Subasini Das on 16 March, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.362 of 2025
State of Odisha & others .... Appellants
-versus-
Subasini Das .... Respondent
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellants - Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
For Respondent - Mr. S.S. Das, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Date of Hearing & Date of Judgment: 16.03.2026
Chittaranjan Dash, J.
1. By means of this Intra-Court Appeal, the Government and its functionaries lay a challenge to the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21977 of 2014, wherein the learned Court having favoured the prayer of the Writ Petitioner ordered as follows:-
"10. It is stated at the bar that the petitioner has in the meantime retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, having held as above, the only relief that can be granted at this stage to the petitioner is by directing the concerned authority to pay her the regular scale of the pay W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 1 of 9 from date she was entitled to hold the same on regular basis till the date of her retirement.
11. The writ application is disposed of directing the Opposite Party No. l and 2 to pass necessary orders to grant regular salary to the petitioner in the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300/- 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs' 4,200/- with all subsequent pay revision as may have occurred from the date she was appointed as Anganwadi Supervisor on contractual basis till the date of her retirement. Such payment shall obviously be made by deducting the amount paid to her towards contractual remuneration. Since the petitioner has already retired, necessary orders shall be passed within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner."
2. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Jee, learned counsel for the Appellants, contended that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the factual matrix as well as the applicable statutory framework and has thereby erroneously directed grant of promotion with consequential benefits to the Respondent. Referring to the Notification No.23230-V- JCDS-II-33/2006/WCD dated 08.10.2007, whereby the Orissa Children's and Women's Welfare Service Rules, 1989 were amended, it was submitted that the method of recruitment to the Junior Grade Service, along with the prescribed eligibility criteria, has not been correctly appreciated. According to him, the said Rules govern appointments to regular cadre posts and cannot be extended to appointments made against posts specifically created on a contractual basis under a distinct scheme. He further argued that the Government had, by executive instructions, created posts of Anganwadi Supervisor to be filled on contractual basis with consolidated remuneration, and the Respondent, having voluntarily accepted such engagement and having furnished an undertaking not to claim regular status, cannot subsequently seek parity with employees appointed against regular vacancies. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 2 of 9 Judge failed to appreciate this fundamental distinction between contractual engagement and regular appointment and thereby erred in treating the Respondent at par with regularly promoted Supervisors. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Smt. Kausalya Pradhan vs. State of Orissa in W.P.(C) No.3321 of 2011, as confirmed in W.A. No.559 of 2016, wherein similar relief was declined, to contend that the impugned order in the present case is unsustainable and warrants interference.
3. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Appellants. He submitted that the Respondent, having entered service as an Anganwadi Worker in the year 1983 and having acquired graduation in 1992, had completed more than ten years of service by the time the process for selection to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor in the regular cadre was undertaken. It was contended that the Respondent was, in fact, called upon to participate in such selection process along with other eligible candidates, but was not selected for reasons best known to the Appellant-authorities and was instead compelled to opt for appointment on contractual basis. He further submitted that the contractual appointments were intended only for those Anganwadi Workers who, though graduates, had not completed ten years of service, whereas the Respondent, being fully eligible under the statutory framework governing regular appointments, could not have been relegated to a contractual post carrying consolidated remuneration. Distinguishing the decision in Smt. Kausalya Pradhan vs. State of Orissa (supra), it was contended that in the said case there was no material before the Court to establish that the incumbent therein W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 3 of 9 possessed both graduation and the requisite length of service so as to claim consideration against a regular vacancy. In contrast, according to him, the Respondent herein satisfied all such eligibility criteria and was, in fact, considered in the regular selection process. It was also urged that the Respondent had been posted against a substantive vacancy, where previously the post carried a regular scale of pay, thereby reinforcing her claim for regular status. Having said so, Mr. Das submitted that the learned single Judge has considered the case of the Respondent both in fact and law and correctly adjudge her to be given promotion in regular cadre with the consequential benefit.
4. Giving due consideration to the submissions made by the parties and upon perusal of the appeal papers, it emerges that the sole Respondent was initially appointed as an Anganwadi Worker under the ICDS Project at Binjharpur (Goudasahi Harijana Sahi Village) by the CDPO, Binjharpur, in the year 1983. Pursuant to such appointment, the Respondent continued in the said post and rendered services to the satisfaction of the authorities. While so engaged, she completed her graduation in the year 1992. In the year 2007, the Appellants introduced a policy to promote graduate Anganwadi Workers to the post of Supervisor, keeping in view their respective seniority. Accordingly, a communication dated 30.04.2008 was issued to the Respondent, directing her, along with 35 other Anganwadi Workers, to appear before a duly constituted Sub-Committee on 03.05.2008 at the office of the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, for a suitability test for promotion to the Junior Grade Service. Pursuant to such intimation, the Respondent, along with other graduate Anganwadi Workers, participated in the said suitability test. However, following the said process, the Sub-
W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 4 of 9Committee recommended only 10 candidates out of the 36 graduates Anganwadi Workers working in different ICDS Projects in the district of Jajpur for promotion to the post of Supervisor. The said candidates were accordingly appointed and joined their respective places of posting in the scale of pay of Rs.4,750-7,500/-.
4.1. In the meanwhile, the Appellants, in its Women and Child Development Department, issued a notification with regard to filling up of the post of Anganwadi Supervisors by graduate Anganwadi workers, who completed five years of continuous service after acquiring graduation as qualification. However, they were treated as contractual employees in the aforesaid post of Anganwadi Supervisors. Since the aforesaid policy of the Government was to be implemented on the basis of seniority, a gradation list of Anganwadi workers, who had completed five years of service, having qualification graduation was prepared for the district of Jajpur and forwarded to the Government for taking decisions for their appointment as Supervisors on contractual basis. In the said gradation list, the name of the Respondent appeared at Sl. No.1 among the total 43 candidates. Consequent upon the aforesaid gradation list, 18 numbers of graduate Anganwadi workers from serial number 1 to 18 were initially shortlisted on the basis of seniority with regard to their joining in the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. Upon preparation of the list, objection was invited against the same to be submitted within seven days. After expiry of the period of objection, the Government under its careful consideration, decided to appoint such graduate Anganwadi workers as ICDS supervisors. Consequently, CDPO, Binjharpur, vide Order dated 04.06.2010, relived the Respondent from her Anganwadi Centre enabling her to join in her new place of posting W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 5 of 9 as lady Supervisor in the ICDS project at Barchana. Upon her joining as ICDS Supervisor, the Respondent was paid a consolidated salary of Rs.9,300/- only whereas, other similarly situated persons were promoted to the post of ICDS with same qualification and experience were given salary at substantially higher rate.
4.2 When the position stood thus, vide Order No.2530 dated 23.12.2011 of the Collector, Jajpur referring to the notification of the Government in Women and Child Development Department bearing No. 23230 dated 08.10.2007, promoted 9 numbers of non-graduate Anganwadi workers to the post of Supervisor in the scale of pay of Rs.9,300/- to 34,800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/-. These promotions were against substantive vacancies as that of the Respondent but they having granted regular scale of pay, the Respondent remained in consolidated salary of Rs.9,300/-. Amongst the nine, three promotees namely Basantilata Rout, Mandakini Sethy and Jharana Palai were junior to the Respondent. Very surprisingly, one Pranati Satapathy, whose name did not place in the initial list of 36 Anganwadi workers, who faced suitability test and was even not a matriculate as on 30.04.2008, was promoted to the post of ICDS Supervisor in the year 2011 against a regular appointment in substantive vacancy with scale of pay attached to the said post.
4.3 Being aggrieved, the Respondent submitted a representation before the authorities on 06.08.2012, ventilating her grievances regarding the alleged illegality, irregularity, and discrimination in the matter of promotion to the post of ICDS Supervisor, inter alia, seeking grant of the scale of pay attached to the said post along with consequential benefits. Since no action was taken on the said W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 6 of 9 representation, the Respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22017 of 2012. The said Writ application was disposed of with a direction to the authority to examine the case of the Respondent and to take a decision strictly in accordance with the merit of the representation affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing. In compliance to the direction, the Respondent submitted a fresh representation for the consideration of higher authority. The authority i.e. Collector, Jajpur, upon consideration of the grievance of the Respondent, while disposing the same, vide order dated 21.03.2013, observed to reconsider the case of the Respondent having found her deprived of her legitimate claim as follows:
"The DSWO, Jajpur has not challenged the eligibility of the present petitioner for promotion to the post of ICDS Supervisors as per the eligibility criteria provided under the Rule which leads to the assumption that the present petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of ICDS supervisor.
Secondly, as it appears, accepting contractual appointment in the post of ICDS Supervisors by furnishing a no objection for such appointment and an undertaking not to claim regular scale and DA and other allowance is not a bar in the instant case for considering her promotion to the post of ICDS supervisor. Clarification in this regard could have been sought for from Govt. in case of any doubt regarding elimination of the names of the AWWs accepted contractual appointment and whether their cases are fit for consideration for promotion to the post of ICDS supervisors.
Elimination of the name of the present petitioner from the gradation list in absence of instruction/clarification from Govt. only on the presumption that she lost her eligibility for promotion to the post of ICDS in accordance with the eligibility criteria provided under the Rule and making her prejudiced of being promoted to the post of ICDS Supervisors, appears to be irregular.
In view of the facts discussed above this court is inclined to hold that the present petitioner has been prejudiced of her legitimate claim of being promoted to the post of ICDS Supervisor only because of Mis-representation of fact during selection of candidate from among the eligible W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 7 of 9 AWWs. Presumption beyond the existing statute should not have been encouraged. This Court concludes the instant proceeding with a direction to the DSWO, Jajpur to obtain clarification of Govt. regarding the eligibility of the AWWs. Appointed as contractual basis in the said post of ICDS, Supervisors for promotion to the said post under the existing Rules and reconsider the case of the present petitioner."
5. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the DSWO, Jajpur to obtain clarification from the Government regarding the eligibility of the Anganwadi workers, appointed on contractual basis in the said post of ICDS Supervisor for promotion to the post under existing rules and reconsider the case of the Respondent. No clarification was however, received by the authority. Accordingly, the Respondent moved this Court in W.P.(C)No.21977 of 2014.
6. From the discussions as above, we draw the conclusion that the sole ground on which the promotion of the Respondent in regular cadre to the post of Anganwadi Supervisor has been denied is that she volunteered to opt for the contractual post though fairly eligible to the regular cadre having acquired the required qualification and experience at par with her counterparts. At this juncture, the observations of the authority i.e. Collector, Jajpur dated 21.03.2013 in considering the representation of the Respondent pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22017 of 2012 assumes paramount significance inasmuch as it amplifies the manner in which the Respondent has been deprived of her legitimate right to be regularised in substantive post of Anganwadi Supervisor at par with others. The State being a model employer as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & Anr. vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2013 (2) SCC 516 cannot discriminate with employees having similar qualifications and years of service (similarly situated) depriving them W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 8 of 9 arbitrarily the promotion, as this violates the right to equal opportunity under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India more so when a Junior is promoted over a qualified senior, or similar employees are excluded from promotion.
7. As rightly contended by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellants, wherein relief was declined, are distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as the petitioners therein were not shown to possess the same qualification and experience as the Respondent in the present case. On the contrary, the Appellants have failed to justify the sustainability of the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge.
8. With the observations made by us as above and having broadly agreeing with the reasons assigned by the learned single Judge we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The Appeal accordingly fails being devoid of merit. order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21977 of 2014, to be implemented within an outer limit of eight weeks without giving scope for contempt proceeding.
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge Signature Bijay Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KETAN SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Mar-2026 10:16:21 W.A. No.362 of 2025 Page 9 of 9