The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6371 of 2025 Sudhansu Sekhar Sao ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Prasanna Kumar Sahoo State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties -versus- Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena, ASC
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 05.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- it “In the aforesaid circumstances, is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may this writ graciously be pleased application and issue a RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the opposite parties failed to show cause or show to admit Page 1 of 6. insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute and on hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to: i) Issue appropriate writ/writs holding that the impugned order No.6288 dated 15.02.2025, issued by the opp. party No.1 under Anneure-5 in so far as the petitioner is concerned as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and quash the said order. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting i.e. at Tirol, Jagatsinghpur till his retirement i.e. 31.8.2025. iii) This Hon'ble Court further be pleased to pass such other appropriate direction/directions or order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner, while serving in the cadre of ORS, was promoted to the OAS Grade-A (JB) on 31.12.2020. On 12.08.2022, while the Petitioner was serving as Tahasildar Athagarh, was transferred to Dhenkanal Sadar Tahasil under Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner was again transferred on 27.02.2024 to Gondia Tahsil in Dhenkanal District under Annexure-3 where he joined on 01.03.2024. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner had barely completed a couple of months in Gondia Tahasildar, which he was again transferred to Tirtol Tahasil in Jagatsinghpur District vide Page 2 of 6. order dated 17.08.2024, where he joined on 25.11.2024 pursuant to order under Annexure-4. While serving as Tahsildar in Tirtol Tahasil, the Petitioner has again been transferred to Binjharpur Tahsil in Jajpur District vide order dated 15.02.2025 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such frequent transferred, particularly the last transfer order dated 15.02.2025 under Annexure-5, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since 2022 the Petitioner has been transferred on four occasions. He further contended that the Petitioner is likely to retire on 31st August, 2025. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the transfer order dated 15.02.2025 under Annexure-5 is not only contrary to the rules but also has been passed with a mala fide intention. Therefore, it was contended that unless this Court interferes with the transfer order, the Petitioner would be seriously prejudiced. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that transfer is an incidence of the service. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be given a choice with regard to the place of posting. He further contended that keeping in view the administrative exigencies, revenue officers have been transferred during their service carrier. Page 3 of 6. He further contended that not only the present Petitioner but also several other Tahsildars have been transferred by virtue of the order under Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Therefore, any interference with the transfer of the present Petitioner is absolutely uncalled for. On such ground, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and, as such, the same should be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions, further taking of the factual background of the present case and the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the Petitioner has been transferred on four different occasions within a span of a short period, i.e. from the year 2022 to present. The last two transfers have taken place within a span of 7 to 8 months. In the aforesaid factual background, this Court is constrained to observe that such transfer orders are likely to not only inconvenience to the Government Officers but also the same is also likely to affect the morale of the Government Officers concerned. Moreover, it is observed that the impugned order of transfer dated 15.02.2025 is not within the period of transfer as has been notified by the Government in the circular and that same is not an any administrative exigencies. On perusal of the order under Annexure-5, it Page 4 of 6. appears that the same is routine transfer resorted to by the authorities. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to observe that many such cases are coming before this Court challenging the transfer of Government Officers, although there is specific notification with regard to the seasonal transfer that is to be adhered to by the Government and other authorities. However, the same is not being strictly adhered to. This Court is also conscious of the fact that ordinarily this Court should not interfere with the transfer orders which are in the larger interest of public administration. However, taking into consideration the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the present case requires intervention of this Court especially keeping in view the fact that the transfer order under Annexure-5 has not been made an administrative grounds. Moreover, the Petitioner has been transferred on four different occasions during last two years. Additionally, despite the fact that the Petitioner is going to retire in a few months’ time, he has been transferred yet again, which is contrary to the Government Circular and is also contrary to the rules which provides that ordinarily the Government Officers should not be disturbed towards the fag end of their carrier. Since the Petitioner is at fag end of his carrier and the impugned order reveals that the same is not passed on any administrative exigencies, this Court is of the view that Page 5 of 6. the same requires reconsideration by the authorities. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation within a week from today taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the representation of the Petitioner keeping in view the relevant rules as well as circulars applicable to the facts of the case and the representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1 along with a copy of this order. It is further directed that in the event the Petitioner has not been relieved in the meantime, he shall not be relieved for a period of six weeks. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 05-Mar-2025 17:27:29 Page 6 of 6.