Orissa High Court
Krushna Chadnra Palei vs State Of Odisha & Others. ..... Opposite ... on 16 January, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 39426 of 2023
Krushna Chadnra Palei ..... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Pandey, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
16.01.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging
order dt.29.11.2023 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-
2. Vide the said order, Petitioner has put under transfer to the District
Project Office, S.S., Nuapada against existing vacancy.
4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the post in which the Petitioner is continuing is not transferable
and similar view has been taken by this Court in its judgment
dt.20.04.2021 in W.P.(C ) Nos.12584 of 2019 and 24671 of 2020.
View taken by this Court in para 34 of the judgment reads as follows:
Taking into consideration the above meaning of the
jurisdiction and applying the same to the present context,
it is made clear that in absence of any provision contained
in OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 read with
the guidelines dated 17.12.2018 and the decision taken in
36th Meeting of the Executive Committee of OPEPA held
on 21.03.2018 with regard to formulation of
transfer/deployment policy as per clause-11.2 thereof, the
impugned orders passed by the authority transferring the
petitioners, who are contractual employees, are without
jurisdiction. Thereby, the order of transfer dated
17.07.2019 under Annexure-2 to W.P.(C) No.12584 of
2019 and that of dated 17.07.2019 under Annexure-1 to
W.P.(C) No. 24671 of 2020, as well as letter dated
23.09.2020 and order dated 21.09.2020 under Annexures-
5 and 6 to the W.P.(C) No.24671 of 2020 cannot sustain
in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and hereby
quashed.
As opposite party no.2 is the employer, keeping in
view the settled proposition of law, as discussed above, it
is left open to the said authority to frame suitable
policy/guidelines for transfer of contractual employees of
OPEPA/OSEPA by following due procedure as provided
under law.
4.1. It is contended that since the post in which the Petitioner
was continuing was not a transferable post Petitioner could not have
been put under transfer on the ground indicated in Annexure-2
4.2. It is also contended that on the face of the interim order
passed on 29.01.2024, Petitioner was not allowed to continue and he
is continuing on leave as on date. It is accordingly contended that
the impugned order is required to be interfered with by this Court.
5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of OPEPA/OSEPA contended that Petitioner has
been rightly put under transfer, but no such document has been filed
along with the counter showing that the petitioner is continuing in a
transferable post.
5.1. Placing reliance on the judgment available under Annexure-
5, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.29.11.2023 so passed by
Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-2. While quashing the same, this
Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to allow the Petitioner to continue in
his original place of posting at Bhadrak with passing of an
appropriate order within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. The
break period of service be regularised with extension of all service
benefits save and except the financial benefit as due and admissible.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 17-Jan-2025 17:10:03
