Prativa Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5675 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prativa Mohanty vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 20 August, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   W.P.(C) No. 22874 of 2024

      Application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
      India.
                             ---------------

      Prativa Mohanty                          ....        Petitioner

                              -versus-

      State of Odisha and Others               ....     Opp. Parties



      Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
      _______________________________________________________
      For Petitioner    : M/s. M.K. Mohanty, T. Pradhan
                           M. Mohanty, A. Mohanty &
                           S.D. Pattanaik, Advocates

                                      Vs.

      For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
                           [Addl. Government Advocate]
      __________________________________________________________
      CORAM:
           JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                             JUDGMENT

20.08.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks

to challenge the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the

Collector, Kendrapara in transferring her to ICDS Project,

Kendrapara from Rajnagar ICDS Project.

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the

petitioner was originally appointed as Anganwadi worker in

Bhatapada Anganwadi center under Rajnagar ICDS project.

While working as such, being a graduate, she was

promoted to the post of Supervisor on contractual basis

being duly selected by the DPC on 23.03.2010. She was

posted initially at Pattamundai ICDS Project but

subsequently the order being modified, she was posted at

Rajnagar ICDS Project. She has been discharging her duty

sincerely at that place since then. The contractual

Supervisors were allowed to continue as per order dated

22.12.2014 of the Government on consolidated

remuneration of Rs.9,300/- per month till further orders.

While the matter stood thus, the impugned order was

issued transferring the petitioner from Rajnagar ICDS

Project to Kendrapara ICDS Project. Contending that the

petitioner, being a contractual employee working with

meager consolidated salary, such transfer would cause

hardship and prejudice to her and in any case, the Orissa

Children's and Women's Welfare Service Rules, 1989 are

not applicable to her. On such facts, the petitioner has filed

this writ petition with the following prayer:-

"The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the writ petition, issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Order No. 1992/SW Dt. 03.09.2024 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-3 and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed just and proper."

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite

party Nos.2 and 3, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was

being paid consolidated remuneration of Rs.21,000/- as

per order dated 06.11.2021 of the government.

Subsequently as per resolution dated 25.09.2024 of the

Government in Women and Child Development Department

as also letter dated 26.09.2024, the petitioner's service was

regularized with effect from 25.09.2024 with time scale of

pay of Rs.35,400-Rs.1,12,400/- of the pay matrix of ORSP

Rules, 2017. As a regular employee, all prevailing rules of

government are applicable to her. As such, the prayer

made in the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be

rejected.

4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the

order of transfer was issued on 03.09.2024, which was

challenged in the present writ petition as, being a

contractual employee she cannot be transferred from one

place to another.

5. Heard Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government

Advocate for the State.

6. Mr. Mohanty would first argue that the order of

transfer was issued prior to the order of the government

regularizing her services. Being a contractual employee,

the petitioner could not have been transferred. Secondly,

the resolution dated 25.09.2024 and letter dated

26.09.2024 of the Government clearly mention that the

post in question was created only for the petitioner with the

stipulation that no other employee can be appointed

against such post. Further, said post would stand

abolished as soon as the employee for whom it is created

vacates it for any reason. Mr. Mohanty therefore argues

that the post of Supervisor under ICDS, Rajnagar being

personal to the petitioner, she could not have been

transferred.

7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned AGA would argue that

the contention that the petitioner being a contractual

employee could not have been transferred is redundant as

in the meantime she has been regularized. Secondly, the

contention that the post created was personal to the

petitioner is misconceived as there is no such provision in

the rules for creation of post personal to an employee. The

post may have been vacated to accommodate the

petitioners having regard to absence of vacancies in the

cadre but the same can, by no stretch of imagination be

construed as being created with reference to a particular

place of posting. In fact, only the post was created without

mentioning the place of posting. So, the petitioner, in

administrative exigency and holding the post so created,

can be posted anywhere in the district.

8. It is true that the writ petition was filed

challenging the order dated 03.09.2024. At that time, the

petitioner was admittedly a contractual employee. However,

this Court refrains from entering into the question as to if a

contractual employee can be transferred or not because, as

argued by learned State Counsel, the same has become

redundant upon regularization of the petitioner's services

in the meantime. Reference to the resolution dated

25.09.2024 would reveal that the Government decided to

regularize the services of contractual ICDS supervisors

working in different ICDS projects by creating equal

numbers of temporary posts in Level-9 in order to absorb

the contractual ICDS supervisors till their superannuation.

The said resolution, inter alia, mentioned as follows:-

"The posts so created is personal to the employee for whom it is created and no other employee can be appointed against such post, it would stand abolished as soon as the employee for whom it is created vacates it, on account of retirement or confirmation in another regular permanent post or for any other reason. The above ICDS Supervisors are to be placed at the bottom of the gradation list of ICDS Supervisors in their district as on date. The services and financial benefits will accordingly flow prospectively."

9. Similar condition was mentioned in letters dated

26.09.2024 as well as 02.11.2024. The petitioner was

posted in Rajnagar ICDS Project. It has been urged that the

post of Supervisor in Rajnagar ICDS Project is personal to

the petitioner for which she could not have been

transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

attempted to make out the above meaning from the

sentence "post so created is personal to the employee for

whom it is created and no other employee can be appointed

against such post"

10. This Court is not inclined to accept the

argument as above for the reason in view of its observation

that the post was created and not with any specific place of

posting attached. It means, a post was created to absorb

persons like the petitioner, with the stipulation that such

post cannot be filled up by any other person and would

stand abolished upon vacation of the incumbent for any

reason. It is nowhere mentioned that the post of

'Supervisor in Rajnagar ICDS Project' was created

specifically for the petitioner. In fact, it could not have been

so stipulated as it would be foreign to service

jurisprudence. The resolution of the government was post-

specific and not place-specific. This implies, the petitioner,

wherever posted, would be deemed to be posted against the

post specifically created to accommodate her. It does not

and cannot be that she has to be posted only in Rajnagar

ICDS Project. As has been stated in the counter affidavit,

the petitioner is a regular employee to whom all prevailing

rules of the Government in Women's and Child

Development Department would apply. Transfer being an

incidence of service, she cannot insist on being posted at a

particular place.

11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is

unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the

petitioner so as to be persuaded to interfere with the

impugned order.

12. Resultantly, the writ petition being devoid of

merit, is dismissed.

................................. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

TheSigned 20th August, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:39:03