Disposed¶21

Jhili Bhutia v. Union of India

Orissa HC18 Jul 2025WP(C)/13440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal and disposal of writ petition W.P.(C) No.13440 of 2022; employment claim under Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 rejected by Director, Personnel, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (order dated 28.05.2021); Petitioner allowed to withdraw to seek fresh consideration before the authority; Court expressly expressed no opinion on merits; maintainability of fresh application contested by Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5; coram K.R. Mohapatra and Savitri Ratho, JJ.; decided 18.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of as withdrawn at the Petitioner's request to seek fresh redressal before Opposite Party No.3; the Court expressly recorded that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of any fresh application, and I.A. No.11697 of 2025 was disposed of accordingly. ¶21

Jhili Bhutia Vs Union of India — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.13440 of 2022

¶2

Jhili Bhutia

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Sanjib Kumar Bhanjadeo, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India and Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Additional Standing Counsel Mr.Pratyush Ranjan Patnaik, Advocate (for Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5) Mr.Dipti Ranjan Bhokta, CGC for O.P.No.1

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

¶11

Order No.

¶12

ORDER 18.07.2025 W.P.(C) No.13440 of 2022 &

¶13

I.A. No.11697 of 2025

¶14

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

This writ application has been filed with a prayer to set aside

¶16

the order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Director, Personnel, Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur (Opposite Party No.3) in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for providing employment under the provisions of Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 (for brevity, ‘the Policy’).

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the aforesaid I.A. with a prayer to withdraw the writ petition to approach the Authority (Opposite Party No.3) afresh for redressal of her grievance.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Mr.Patnaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 submits that the Opposite Party No.3, considering the case of the Petitioner, has already refused to extent the benefit under the provisions of the Policy, as she is not entitled to the same. Thus, fresh application for extension of benefit under the said policy is not maintainable.

¶20

Mr. Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the Petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition, he has no objection to the same.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the prayer made in I.A. No.11697 of 2025, this Court disposes of the writ application as withdrawn. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the application, if any, to be filed by the Petitioner for fresh consideration of her prayer for extension of benefit under the policy.

¶22