[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bibekakanta Das vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 3 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3439 of 2026
Bibekakanta Das ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Nihal Rath
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 03.02.2026
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Admit the writ
application, issue rule Nisi calling upon the opp. parties
to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be
not allowed. Upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause
make the said Rule absolute, Issue writ/ writs in the
nature of
i. Mandamus quashing the office order No.408
dtd.28.01.2026 under Annexure-4 declaring the same to
be arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and allow the
petitioner to continue in the office of BEO, Dasarathpur
in the district of Jajpur.
ii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit
and proper for the ends of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that pursuant to an advertisement dated 08.12.2011 at Annexure-
2, the Petitioner was engaged as Accountant-cum-Support Staff
on contractual basis. While he was continuing in service under
the BEO, Dasarathpur Block the Petitioner has been temporarily
transferred to the Binjharpur Block to work under the BEO,
Binjharpur vide order dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-4.
Challenging such order of transfer the Petitioner has approached
this Court order of transfer dated 28.01.2026 has been
challenged on the ground that the same is in contravention of the
guidelines prepared by the Government at Anneuxre-2. Further,
drawing attention of this Court to clause-11 under general
conditions/notification dated 08.12.2011, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted before this Court that the engagement of the
Petitioner is subject to the condition that no transfer will be
made from the concerned block.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the
impugned transfer order dated 28.01.2026 at Annexure-4 stated
before this Court by virtue of the impugned order dated
28.01.2026 the Petitioner has been transferred from Dasarathpur
Block to Binjharpur Block. Thus, order has been passed in
violation of the guideline at Annexure-2. On such ground,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the office order
dated 28.01.2026 is unsustainable in law and accordingly the
same should be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter,
however taking into consideration the submission made by the
learned counsel for the Petitioner and on a careful examination
of the allegation made in the writ application, he will have no
objection in the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite
Party No.3 i.e. Collector-cum-Chairman, Samagra Shiksha,
Jajpur for redressal of his grievance in accordance with the
guidelines of the applicable rules/notification within a stipulated
period of time.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for both
sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well
as the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court
prima facie observes that the guideline at Annexure-2 clearly
stipulates that the contractual employees appointed under
Annexure-2 shall not be subjected to transfer from one block to
the other. However, in violation of such guideline the Petitioner
has been transferred from Dasarathpur Block to Binjharpur
Block. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court deems it
proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to
the Petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.3 to re-examine
the impugned order dated 28.01.2026, by taking into
consideration the notification dated 08.12.2011 at Annexure-2.
Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of by
directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.3 by
filing a detailed representation within ten days from today along
with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite
party No.3 shall consider the representation of the Petitioner
keeping in view the notification as well as the advertisement
while engaging the Petitioner in duty, on contractual basis, and
pass a speaking and reasoned order while disposing of his
representation. Let such representation be considered and
disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date the
Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.3. The final
decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a
week thereafter. It is further directed that till disposal of the
representation of the Petitioner in the manner as has been
directed hereinabove, no operation of the impugned order at
Annexure-4 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks.
While considering the representation of the Petitioner, the
Opposite Party No.3 is directed to take into consideration the
order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court on 05.11.2024
in W.P.(C) No.10709 of 2018.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
application stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 4 of 4.
