Suresh Kumar Dalabehera vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1748 Ori

Orissa High Court

Suresh Kumar Dalabehera vs State Of Odisha & Others ..... Opposite ... on 24 February, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            WP(C) No.6063 of 2026

            Suresh Kumar Dalabehera                 .....               Petitioner
                                                             Represented by Adv. -
                                                             Ananta Narayan
                                                             Pattanayak

                                          -versus-
            State Of Odisha & Others             .....           Opposite Parties
                                                            Represented by Adv. -
                                                            Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC


                                CORAM:
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                              MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

24.02.2026 Order No.

01. WP(C) No.6063 of 2026 & I.A. No.3731 of 2026

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present writ petition the Petitioner has sought for following relief:-

"Under the circumstances, the petitioner most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties as to why:-

i. The office order dated. 13.02.2026 issued by Under Secretary to Government, Skill Development and Technical Education Department, (Opp. Party No.2) under

Annexure-7 shall not be quashed being declared as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law.

ii. A specific direction shall not be issued to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to transfer him to the Govt. ITI, Rourkela as per his request under Annexure-5 so also Annexure-6, in the interest of justice.

If the Opp. parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause the rule shall be made absolute;

And/or may pass such order/orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the office order dated 13.02.2026 at annexure-7 passed by the under Secretary to Government, Skill Development and Technical Education Department- Opposite Party No.2 has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. He further contended that by virtue of the impugned office order the Petitioner who was working as a Principal- in- Charge, L-I, Government, I.T.I, Sonepur has been transferred on deployment basis as Principal-in-charge, Govt. I.T.I, Bhawanipatna, in the district of Kalahandi with immediate effect. He further submitted that since the Petitioner is ill and as on leave, however, in the meantime the Opposite Parties have issued a relive order dated 20.02.2026. The same has been blocked and deployed by filing in additional affidavit in Court today.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has not yet handed over charge as he is on leave must try to the date of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026. He further contended that although the Petitioner has not completed yet three years of service in terms of the circular of the Government under Rule 1991. The petitioner has been transferred on deployment basis

in violation of such circular of the Government. On such ground learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 at annexure-7 is unsustainable in law.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, he further contended that the Petitioner has not approached the Government for redressal of his grievance instead of approaching this Court directly by filing the present writ application. In such view of the matter learned counsel for the State contended that in the event the Petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. He will have no objection to the same.

7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the backgrounds facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ application further taking note of the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation taking therein all the grounds along with all the supporting documents to within a week from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with the rules and the circular/ notifications and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks. The final decision so taken be communicated to the

Petitioner within ten days thereafter.

8. As an interim meausre, it is further directed that in the event the Petitioner has not handed over the charge with reliever in the meantime. The order dated 13.02.2026 at annexure-7 shall not be given effect to for a period of eight weeks'.

9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Suchitra

Designation: Junior Stenographer

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 25-Feb-2026 19:31:34