Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Benudhar Swain vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 8067 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8067 Ori
Judgement Date : 10 September, 2025

Orissa High Court

Benudhar Swain vs State Of Odisha on 10 September, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          W.P.(C) No.23256 of 2014
          In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
     the Constitution of India, 1950.
                                      ----
         Benudhar Swain                      ....            Petitioner

                                     -versus-
           State of Odisha, represented                   ....       Opposite Parties
           through the Secretary, School &
           Mass Education Department &
           Others

                           Advocates Appeared in this case

                    For Petitioner         -      M/s. B.S. Tripathy, M.K. Rath,
                                                  J. Pati & M. Bhagat
                                                  (Advocates)

                    For Opp. Parties -            Mr.U.C. Behera,
                                                  Additional Government Advocate
                                                   ---
           CORAM
                  MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.09.2025
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with

the following text of prayer:-

‚The petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue Rule NISI to the OPs to show cause as

to why the impugned order dtd.28.6.2014 in annexure-8 shall not be quashed and further why they shall not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement as Gana Sikshyak or Sikshya Sahayak;

And on their failing to show cause or showing insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dtd.28.6.2014 in annexure-B;

And further issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ops to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement as Gana Sikshyak or Sikshya Sahayak within a stipulated period.‛

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was duly appointed by the jurisdictional authority vide

order dated 10.04.1991 and came to be discharged from service

with effect from 31.03.2001. The policy statement dated

03.07.2008, a copy whereof avails at Annexrue-4, provides for re-

engagement of discharged employees of the kind and that benefit

having not been extended to his client, the action of the opposite

parties is grossly discriminatory. Learned counsel also draws

attention of the Court to the earlier round of litigation wherein a

Coordinate Judge of this Court in his W.P.(C) No.3042 of 2014

disposed off on 07.05.2014 noted his discriminatory treatment of

the petitioner and therefore, had given liberty to make a

representation for reconsideration, which he did.

3. Learned counsel further argues that despite the order of the

Coordinate Bench, now the situation remains the same, inasmuch

as the claim of the petitioner has been negatived vide order dated

28.06.2014 (Annexure-8). Therefore, counsel for the petitioner

submits that, the Court should come to the aid of petitioner to

undo the injustice meted out to him.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the opposite parties

vehemently opposes the petition making the submission in

justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it

has been constructed. He submits that the appointment of the

petitioner was not by the Competent Authority and discharged

having happened way back in the year 2001, at this length of

time, nothing can be done.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the subject matter of this petition is

substantially similar to the one treated in W.P.(C) No.16773 of

2016 between Jugal Charan Nayak v. State of Odisha disposed off

vide order judgment 13.08.2025. Paragraph 7.6 of the said

judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.16773 of 2016 reads as under:-

‚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.‛

4.1. This Court, in the coordinate judgment, issued a Writ of

Mandamus to the opposite parties to absorb the litigants said case

in any new scheme/project within eight weeks without driving

them to one more round of legal battle. The facts of this case being

substantially similar, same relief needs to be granted to the

petitioner herein when it is specifically demonstrated that he was

appointed by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated

10.04.1991. In any event, entry of the petitioner to the services till

he was discharged on 31.03.2001 cannot be said to be illegal at all.

That apart, in terms of Annexure-4, many others, who were

similarly circumstanced, having been re-engaged, learned counsel

for the petitioner is right in telling that his client is treated with a

step-motherly attitude. There is such a finding entered by the

Coordinate Bench in the earlier round of litigation. That is an

added ground in this case, which was not there in the coordinate

judgment.

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of

Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2014

issued by the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary to Government,

School & Mass Education Department C.E.O. under Annexure-8 in

so far as it relates to the petitioner; a Writ of Mandamus issues to

the opposite party no.1 to absorb the petitioner in any new

scheme/project with comparable emoluments, keeping in view his

qualification & long experience of ten years, within an outer limits

of eight (8) weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General

of this Court.

Now, no costs.

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 10th Day of September, 2025/Basu

Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 12-Sep-2025 11:24:10

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter