[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Harekrushna Das vs Principal Secretary To on 10 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.34892 of 2022
Harekrushna Das .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. K. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Principal Secretary to
Govt., Works Department,
BBSR and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.02.2026
Order No.
14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging an order of transfer passed wayback on
13.12.2022 by the Opp. Party No.6 under Annexure-5.
4. It is the main contention of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner being
a District Cadre Employee, he could not have been
transferred to another district by treating the post to be a
State Cadre Post. It is also contended that such an order
// 2 //
of transfer has been passed by Opp. Party No.6, who is
not at all competent to pass such an order.
4.1. It is further contended that on the face of the
interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2022,
petitioner was not allowed to continue in his original
place of posting and accordingly CONTC No.37 of 2023
was filed. However, on the face of the interim order
passed on 20.12.2022 and the order passed in the
Contempt Petition, petitioner was never allowed to
discharge his duty and he is going without service since
14.12.2022 to till date.
4.2. However, in course of hearing, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly contended that
petitioner is ready and willing to join in his place of
transfer pursuant to Annexure-5, but without prejudice
to the rights and contention raised in the Writ Petition.
4.3. It is also contended that after his joining in the place
of transfer, liberty be given to the petitioner to make an
appropriate application before Opp. Party No.2 for
consideration of the grievance so far as the order of
transfer is involved as the same has been passed by an
incompetent authority and petitioner is a district cadre
employee. It is also contended that since petitioner on the
face of the interim order was not allowed to join and
// 3 //
discharge his duty, the break period of service be
regularized in accordance with law.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that since pursuant to the order of transfer,
petitioner was immediately relieved on dtd.14.12.2022
and by the time interim order was passed by this Court
on 20.12.2022, petitioner had already been relieved, he
was not allowed to continue. It is accordingly contended
that since after being relieved on 14.12.2022, petitioner
never joined in his place of transfer, no illegality &
irregularity can be found with the action of the Opp.
Party-State.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl.
Standing Counsel, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner contended that since this Court vide order
dated 20.12.2022, stayed the order of transfer, petitioner
should have been allowed to continue in his original place
of posting. It is also contended that relieve order
dtd.14.12.2022 was never served on the petitioner. Not
only that even though an application for vacation of order
dated 20.12.2022 was filed by the State, but at no point
of time, interim order was vacated by this Court with
passing of any order.
6.1. It is also contended that since Opp. Parties clearly
violated order dtd.20.12.2022, in the connected Contempt
// 4 //
Petition, an order was passed by this Court by directing
Addl. Director General of Police, Crime Branch to submit
a report.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court while
disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to join
in his place of transfer pursuant to Annexure-5 without
prejudice to his rights and contention, on or before
25.02.2026. However, such joining of the petitioner will
not preclude him to make a detailed representation before
Opp. Party No.2 for consideration of his grievance that
the impugned order has been passed by an in-competent
authority and petitioner being a District Cadre Employee,
he could not have been put under transfer to another
district.
7.1. It is however observed that, if petitioner joins in his
place of transfer without prejudice on or before
25.02.2026 as undertaken, the concerned authority-Opp.
Party No.7 shall allow the petitioner to join. The break
period of service w.e.f. 14.12.2022 till his joining be
regularized in accordance with law, in which this Court
expresses no opinion for the present.
7.2. It is also observed that if petitioner makes a detailed
application before Opp. Party No.2 with regard to the
legality and propriety of the order under Annexure-5, the
// 5 //
said authority shall take a lawful decision on the same
within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt
of such representation.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
