Orissa High Court
Swarnalata Bhuyan vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 19 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2446 of 2015
Swarnalata Bhuyan .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
ORDER
Order No. 19.11.2025
04.
The subject matter of this petition is substantially similar to
one in W.P.(C) No.16773 of 2016 between Jugal Charan Nayak
v. State of Odisha & others, etc. heard and disposed off by this
Court vide order dated 13.08.2025. At Paragraphs-7.4 to 7.6 the
following observations appear:
"7.4. The vehement submission of learned AGA that
engagements of the kind are coterminous with the
projects in question and, therefore, there cannot be
elongation of engagement after the accomplishment of
the project, would have been normally accepted.
However, this is not such a normal case, inasmuch as
many other schemes have come up and similarly
circumstanced persons are reengaged under them, as
has already been mentioned above. If that be so, there is
absolutely no justification for denying similar treatment
to the Petitioners on the principle of Parity.
7.5. The last contention of learned AGA that the
Petitioners had gained earlier engagement and they had
not given agreements, as required under the extant rules
then existing, cannot be acceded to. Had they not given
such agreements, nothing prevented the jurisdictional
officials to instruct them to execute one, and had it been
done, Petitioners would have given any number of such
agreements, they being badly in need of some
employment for eking out their livelihood. That apart,
the case of Petitioners was not resisted in the earlier
round of litigation on this ground and therefore, the
same appears to have been taken up as an afterthought
for resisting the petitions, with „come what may‟ attitude
of the bureaucracy. Thus, the impugned orders suffer
from multiple errors apparent on their face.
7.6. It hardly needs to be stated that in the progressively
developing State like Odisha many new ventures are
being undertaken involving persons like the petitioners,
for the purpose of educational campaigns to benefit the
masses. Several new Projects have come up too, which
aspect can be taken judicial notice of. The OPs should
conduct themselves as a Model Employer and wherever
possible, provide employment/engagement contractual,
temporary or otherwise, so that „have nots‟ too will be
able to hold their body & soul together. Of course, this is
subject to certain limitations inherent in the system,
hardly needs to be stressed. After all, compassion is not
alien to our Constitution."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in telling that
like cases should be treated alike and where a relief has been
granted to a set of litigations, the same cannot be denied to the
other set, which is similarly circumstanced. The operative portion
of the order in the cognate case incorporates a Writ of Mandamus
to the OPs to absorb petitioners therein in any new
scheme/project within eight weeks without driving them to one
more round of legal battle. Whatever educational qualifications
have been prescribed, may not now come in the way, since the
petitioner is an old hand.
Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off in
terms of the cognate judgment mutatis mutandis.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
Anisha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Nov-2025 10:49:33
