Mr. P. Das & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Ordered accordingly and writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Learned ASC-Mr. Mohanty appearing for official Opposite Parties opposes the petition contending that all Government services will have incidence of transfer and Petitioner cannot carve out an exception to the general rules; the Apex Court has said that Court should not interfere in matters…
Judgment
Mr. P. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others CORAM: …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Mohanty, ASC HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD ORDER 05.08.2025 Order No.
A teacher is grieving against general transfer order dated
30.07.2025, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-1, wherein his name figures at serial No.26. By the said order, he has been transferred from a school at Puri to another at Malkangiri, which is said to be about 600 KMs. away. The said order also says that these transfers are made on request and that no TA/DA shall be admissible to the transferees.
Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that his job is non-transferable and the rules under which purported transfer has been made are not applicable to his case; his client has not at all made any request for transfer, that too for a place far away from Puri. Lastly, he adds that denial of TA/DA on the assumed ground of request transfer is impermissible. He also highlights the possible difficulties, which an employee in the lower rung would face, should he be transferred to far away place from the family.
Operative part
Learned ASC-Mr. Mohanty appearing for official Opposite Parties opposes the petition contending that all Government services will have incidence of transfer and Petitioner cannot carve out an exception to the general rules; the Apex Court has said that Court should not interfere in matters of transfer vide B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 and if the Petitioner makes an appropriate application, there would be no difficulty for considering the same keeping in view all relevant parameters. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court finds some force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for Petitioner. At the same time, the contention of the learned State counsel also cannot be completely ignored. To balance the competing contentions, it is desirable that the Petitioner makes an appropriate representation to the concerned authorities within one week from this day against the subject transfer and till then his transfer alone needs to be kept in suspended animation subject to outcome of consideration of the said representation. All contentions are kept open. Petitioner shall be permitted to discharge duties in the present place, till he is informed the result of consideration of his representation, provided that he makes one within one week. Ordered accordingly and writ petition is disposed of. Now, no costs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Madhusmita Date: 06-Aug-2025 09:59:30 (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.