Prasanta Kumar Behera vs State of Odisha & Ors.

25^th August 2026

B.P. Routray,J.

Heard Mrs. B.Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K.Jee, learned AGA for State-Opposite Parties.

The Petitioner who was working as Sikshya Sahayak (J.T. Contractual) in the district of Gajapati has challenged the order of disengagement dated 21^st December 2022 of the District Education Officer-cum-DPC, Samagra Siksha, under Annexure-5 and the order of the Collector dated 27^th February 2025 at Annexure-8 confirming the same.

The Petitioner was initially engaged as Sikshya Sahayak (J.T. Contractual) on 24^th April 2018 for a period of one year upon execution of the agreement as per Annexure-1 on payment of fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.7,400/-. He continued to work as such (Junior Teacher) in the primary school, Padampur and then transferred to Government U.G. High School, K.M. Baliasahi, R.Udayagiri in the district of Gajapati. The Petitioner remained absent from the school from 6^th July 2022 to 20^th November 2022. He rejoined in the school on 21^st November 2022 and again continued as the Sikshya Sahayak (Junior Teacher). When the Headmaster of the school intimated re-joining of Petitioner in the school to the Block Education Officer, R.Udayagiri for release of his salary on 21^st December 2022, on the same day the District Education Officer, Gajapati issued the order of his engagement from service. Challenging such order of disengagement of the District Education Officer, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.42143 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 4^th January 2024 directed the Collector, Gajapati to take a decision on the prayer of the Petitioner challenging the order of District Education Officer. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order dated 27^th February 2025 was passed (Annexure-8) by the Collector confirming the order of disengagement of the Petitioner. The orders at Annexure-4 and 5 are thus under challenge in present writ petition.

It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he was under treatment in the Department of Ophthalmology of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack from 6^th July 2022 due to his vision problem and the operation in his eye was also conducted in the hospital. The Petitioner was advised for complete rest and after getting recovered from his illness he joined in duty on 21^st November 2022. Thereafter he was allowed to continue as such in the school and the Headmaster when sent the bill for release of his salary on 21^st December 2022, at that time the order of disengagement was passed on same date by the District Education Officer without asking him for any explanation. However, in the meantime, he had received a show-cause notice on 30^th August 2022 from the District Education Officer-cum-DPC while he was under treatment and he submitted his reply to the same on 9^th September 2022 to the Block Education Officer, R.Udayagiri ventilating his difficulties during the period. It is thus submitted that the order of disengagement, violating the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

The State has filed its counter reiterating same stand taken in the disengagement order as well as the order of the Collector that the Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly from his duty for the period from 6^th July 2022 to 20^th November 2022 in violation of the conditions of engagement as Sikshya Sahayak and therefore, he is liable to be disengaged from service. It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that as per the conditions of the contract the Petitioner cannot be granted leave more than 12 days and he is liable to be disengaged due to continuous absence for the period more than 15 days. Thus, his disengagement from service was bound to happen and no illegality can be said to have committed in the process. Moreover, he was issued with a show-cause notice to explain as to why he shall not be disengaged from the post for such unauthorized absence, and the reply submitted pursuant to the show-cause was unsatisfactory.

As per the conditions of engagement as Sikshya Sahayak, the Petitioner has executed the agreement as per Annexure-1. Clause-15 thereof speaks that, “He/She shall be eligible for casual leave of 12 days during one academic year and for unauthorized absence for a continuous period of 15 days will automatically terminate his/her engagement as spelt in circular no 12689/F dated 23.06.2012”. Further, Clause-7 of said agreement speaks that the Sikshya Sahayak shall maintain regularity and punctuality in attending the school. It is also seen that the engagement as per Annexure-1 was for a period of one year with fixed monthly honorarium of Rs.7,400/-. It is noteworthy to say here that, such engagement may be renewed subject to satisfactory positive performance of the candidate.

The Period of absence of the Petitioner from duty w.e.f. 6^th July 2022 to 20^th November 2022 is undisputed. It also remains undisputed that for such period of absence from duty, the Petitioner had neither given any prior intimation to the authority nor has applied for sanction of the same post facto. When the show-cause notice was issued to him on 30^th August 2022, according to the Petitioner, he submitted his reply on 9^th September 2022 stating his physical illness. The absence of the Petitioner due to his physical illness is subject to satisfaction of the authority. The Petitioner has though produced the OPD card of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack to justify his absence from duty, but it is true that he did not apply for any leave for such period either before remaining absent or after joining in duty on 21^st November 2022. Thus the allegation levelled against him that he remained unauthorized absent from duty for such period is found correct. At the same time, it is also found true that in response to the show-cause notice issued to him on 30^th August 2022, he submitted his reply on 9^th September 2022 stating his illness as the ground for remaining absent from duty.

When the period of absent, may be due to physical illness of the Petitioner, is admitted to be unauthorized as without taking prior permission or getting post facto approval from the authority concerned, then the conditions of engagement as per Annexure-1 are attracted. Thus in operation of Clause-15 of aforesaid agreement under Annexure-1, the Petitioner is liable to be disengaged from service. Moreover, he was issued with show cause notice and it is not that he was deprived of any opportunity of hearing. At the same time, it is true that that the engagement as Sikshya Sahayak is purely contractual and governed by the conditions of engagement as per the agreement executed by the petitioner. Therefore, the order of disengagement under Annexure-4 cannot be said as arbitrary, illegal or against the principles of law.

However, considering from humanitarian ground, where the Petitioner was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak (Jr.Teacher) having C.T. qualification under the State Authority, who is considered as a model employer, and the absence from duty was under compulsion due to suffering from physical illness and undergoing eye operation, it would be worth considering to take a sympathetic view. It is undeniable that, for such unauthorized absent of the Petitioner for such a long period from duty, the order of disengagement is imperative. But taking in-to the circumstances of this particular case, where the petitioner was allowed to continue and discharge the duty again from 21^st November 2022 to 22^nd November 2022, he is required to be paid his fixed honorarium for that period because discharging of his duty for such period is not disputed.

It is important to mention here that, though it was within the knowledge of the authority regarding unauthorized absence of the Petitioner from 6^th July 2022, but the authority did not take any action to disengage him from the post till 21^st December 2022 and when his monthly salary bill was forwarded to the authority, at that stage, the order of disengagement was issued hurriedly on the same date. If the conditions of engagement speaks for disengagement from the post for unauthorized absence from duty for the period of 15 days or more continuously, but the authorities did not take any step in that regard to disengage the Petitioner from the post upon completion of 15 days of absence. It is also true that the Petitioner even after joining on duty on 21^st November 2022 did not submit any application for grant of leave to him for such period of his unauthorized absence. This is a major lapse on the part of the Petitioner and when no application is received from the Petitioner either to allow him on leave for such period or to consider regularization of his engagement for such period of absence from 6^th July 2022 to 20^th November 2022, no action on the part of the authority for regularization of the absence period can be expected.

In such circumstances, the impugned orders under Annexure-5 and 8 are found without any fault. But taking a sympathetic view under such peculiar situation, this court is inclined to consider for fresh engagement of the Petitioner as Sikshya Sahayak. It is submitted by learned state counsel that the scheme of Sikshya Sahayak has been abolished now. Nonetheless, in the event the Petitioner is found suitable for any such post as per his qualification, under the prevalent scheme, if any in operation, his fresh engagement may be considered by Opposite Party No.4 in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.