IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.3353 of 2024 The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar …. Appellant Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA -versus- Harapriya Nanda & others …. Respondents Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 18.02.2026 01. The State and its officials are calling in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 15.02.2023, whereby Respondent-Lady’s WPC(OA) No.2966 of 2016 having been favoured, compensatory relief has been awarded in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) only for the wrongful denial of appointment despite her empanelment and recommendation by the jurisdictional officer. 2. Learned AGA appearing for the Appellant vehemently argues that mere empanelment and recommendation would not give a choate right for appointment; in any way, compensation in a lump-sum of Rs.5,00,000/- could not have been awarded by the learned Single Judge, without adopting any normative yardstick. Per contra, learned counsel p. 2 appearing for the Respondent-lady draws our attention to the findings of learned Single Judge, as has been recorded in Paragraph 7 and seeks dismissal of Appeal. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the Parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, broadly agreeing with the observations of the learned Single Judge. 3.1. The Respondent-lady, being eligible and qualified was empanelled as stipendiary engineer in the Civil Engineering Branch with rank of 22 for the year 1991. Appellant No.3, had recommended the case of Respondent-lady for appointment way back in the year 1991. We also noticed that similar candidates were favoured with the appointment orders. Why this lady has been singled out for a step motherly attitude at the hands of answering Appellants, remains a mystery wrapped in enigma. The State being a Model Employer has to conduct itself in an ideal way, said the Apex Court in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika & another vs. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516. However, the fairness standards fall short of what obtained in the realm. 4.2. It is relevant to reproduce the observations of the learned Single Judge made in Paragraphs 7 to 7.5 of the impugned order. “7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found p. 3 that the Petitioner was duly empanelled for her appointment as a Stipendiary Engineer in the Civil Engineering Branch vide SL. No.288 and Rank No.22 for the year 1991. It is also found that similarly situated empanelled candidate for the year 1991 on being sponsored by the Planning and Coordination Department-Opposite Party No.2 were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers vide order dated 30.03.1994 under Annexure-10/1. Subsequently, though the Petitioner’s name was sponsored by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Department of Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dated 20.09.1994 under Annexure-6, but the Petitioner was never appointed by the Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party No.3 after remaining silent for more than six years intimated vide letter dated 29.03.2001 under Annexure-7 that the Petitioner’s case cannot be considered because of the decision taken by the Department not to appoint any Stipendiary Engineer on and after 01.10.1994. 7.1. The Petitioner challenging the inaction of the Opposite Party No.3 in providing her appointment though approached the Tribunal in O.A No.328 of 1998, but the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.05.2006 under Annexure-8 declined to consider the case of the petitioner. The Order passed by the Tribunal though was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2015, but this Court disposed of the matter vide order dated 18.11.2009 in the light of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.12627 of 2005. 7.2. This Court after going through the order passed in W.P.(C) No.12627 of 2005 found that the decision rendered in the said case is no way applicable to the case of the Petitioner. But pursuant to the liberty granted by the Tribunal, the Petitioner though moved the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexures-9 and 11 with a request to appoint her as Ad-hoc Assistant Engineer taking into account the vacancies available at that point of time, but the Opposite Party No.3 never considered her claim. Only when the Tribunal in O.A No.1228 of 2014 vide order under Annexure-12 directed the Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision, Opposite Party No.3 rejected the prayer vide order dated 06.12.2016 under Annexure-13. 7.3. From the material placed before this Court, it is found that even though the Petitioner was empanelled for her p. 4 appointment as a Stipendiary Engineer with assignment of Serial Number and Rank for the year 1991, but similarly situated candidates empanelled in the year 1991 were appointed as Stipendiary Engineers on being sponsored vide order dated 30.03.1994 under Annexure-10/1. The said appointees were subsequently appointed as regular Asst. Engineer by virtue of the Validation Act issued by the Government. Vide letter dated 20.09.1994 under Annexure-6. The Opposite Party No.2 though sponsored the name of the Petitioner to Opposite Party No.3 for her appointment as Stipendiary Engineers on 20.09.1994 but the same was kept pending till 29.03.2001. Vide letter dated 29.03.2001 under Annexure-7, the Petitioner was only intimated that the Department is unable to provide appointment to the Petitioner as there is a bar for such appointment of Stipendiary Engineers on and after 1.10.1994 as per the decision taken by the High Power Committee. 7.4. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-8, which was not interfered with when challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2007, it is the view of this Court that the prayer as made in the Writ Petition cannot be entertained at present. However, taking into account the sufferings meted out to the Petitioner and the alleged discrimination meted out to her, this Court basing on the decisions as cited (supra) is inclined to held the Petitioner entitled to get compensation as the Petitioner because of the inaction of the Opp. Parties was deprived of her livelihood, which amounts to violation of Article-21 of the Constitution of India. 7.5. This Court taking into account the entireties of the facts while holding the Petitioner entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) directs the Opposite Party No.3 to release the amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.” 4.3. We are in complete agreement with the above observations. In fact, in our considered view what has been awarded as compensation is less than what ought to have p. 5 been. However, our hands are tight, inasmuch as we are told at the Bar that challenge to this order in W.A. No.307 of 2024 has been negatived by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 24.04.2024 and that the further challenge in SLP (C) Dairy No.36555 of 2024 has met the same fate vide order dated 17.09.2024. In the above circumstances, Appeal being thoroughly devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and accordingly it is. Cost to be remitted to the Respondent-lady within four weeks. Should delay be brooked, the same shall attract a sum of Rs.100/- per day for the initial 30 days and Rs.200/- for the days next following. The cost component may be recovered from the erring officials personally. Web copy of order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani