Benudhar Swain Vs State

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

¶6

Advocates Appeared in this case

¶7

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 ---

¶8

CORAM

¶9

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶10

¶11

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 10.09.2025

¶12

¶13

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J .

¶14

The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with

¶15

the following text of prayer:-

¶16

: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

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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;

¶19

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;

¶20

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.;

¶21

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 reengagement 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.

¶22

3. Learned counsel further argues that despite the order of the Coordinate Bench, now the situation remains the same, inasmuch

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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:-

¶27

: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

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

themselves as a Model Employer and wherever possible, provide employment/engagement contractual, temporary or otherwise, so that 8have nots9 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.;

¶30

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.

¶31

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2014

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

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.

¶34

Now, no costs.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶37

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

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ASST. REGISTRAR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 12-Sep-2025 11:24:10

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Benudhar Swain v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benudhar Swain v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabaghan Nanda Vs State of Odisha

Sabita Kumari Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Samal Vs State of Odisha

Saktidhar Das Vs LIC of India

Dr.Laxmikanta Mishra Vs State of Orissa

Dr.Swapna Kabiraj Vs State of Orissa