M.K. Mohanty, T. Pradhan M. Mohanty, A. Mohanty & S.D. Pattanaik, Advocates v. For Opp. Parties
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 22874 of 2024 Application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Prativa Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. M.K. Mohanty, T. Pradhan M. Mohanty, A. Mohanty & S.D. Pattanaik, Advocates Vs. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik, [Addl. Government Advocate] __________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 20.08.2025 The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Collector, Kendrapara in transferring her to ICDS Project, Kendrapara from Rajnagar ICDS Project. Page 1 of 8 2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Anganwadi worker in Bhatapada Anganwadi center under Rajnagar ICDS project. While working as such, being a graduate, she was promoted to the post of Supervisor on contractual basis being duly selected by the DPC on 23.03.2010. She was posted initially at Pattamundai ICDS Project but subsequently the order being modified, she was posted at Rajnagar ICDS Project. She has been discharging her duty sincerely at that place since then. The contractual Supervisors were allowed to continue as per order dated 22.12.2014 of the Government on consolidated remuneration of Rs.9,300/- per month till further orders. While the matter stood thus, the impugned order was issued transferring the petitioner from Rajnagar ICDS Project to Kendrapara ICDS Project. Contending that the petitioner, being a contractual employee working with meager consolidated salary, such transfer would cause hardship and prejudice to her and in any case, the Orissa Children’s and Women’s Welfare Service Rules, 1989 are Page 2 of 8 not applicable to her. On such facts, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “The petitioner most respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to allow the writ petition, issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing Order No. 1992/SW Dt. 03.09.2024 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-3 and pass such other or further order or orders as are deemed just and proper.” 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was being paid consolidated remuneration of Rs.21,000/- as per order dated 06.11.2021 of the government. Subsequently as per resolution dated 25.09.2024 of the Government in Women and Child Development Department as also letter dated 26.09.2024, the petitioner’s service was regularized with effect from 25.09.2024 with time scale of pay of Rs.35,400-Rs.1,12,400/- of the pay matrix of ORSP Rules, 2017. As a regular employee, all prevailing rules of government are applicable to her. As such, the prayer
Decision
made in the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Page 3 of 8 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the order of transfer was issued on 03.09.2024, which was challenged in the present writ petition as, being a contractual employee she cannot be transferred from one place to another. 5. Heard Mr. M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 6. Mr. Mohanty would first argue that the order of transfer was issued prior to the order of the government regularizing her services. Being a contractual employee, the petitioner could not have been transferred. Secondly, the resolution dated 25.09.2024 and letter dated 26.09.2024 of the Government clearly mention that the post in question was created only for the petitioner with the stipulation that no other employee can be appointed against such post. Further, said post would stand abolished as soon as the employee for whom it is created vacates it for any reason. Mr. Mohanty therefore argues that the post of Supervisor under ICDS, Rajnagar being Page 4 of 8 personal to the petitioner, she could not have been transferred. 7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned AGA would argue that the contention that the petitioner being a contractual employee could not have been transferred is redundant as in the meantime she has been regularized. Secondly, the contention that the post created was personal to the petitioner is misconceived as there is no such provision in the rules for creation of post personal to an employee. The post may have been vacated to accommodate the petitioners having regard to absence of vacancies in the cadre but the same can, by no stretch of imagination be construed as being created with reference to a particular place of posting. In fact, only the post was created without mentioning the place of posting. So, the petitioner, in administrative exigency and holding the post so created, can be posted anywhere in the district. 8. It is true that the writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 03.09.2024. At that time, the petitioner was admittedly a contractual employee. However, Page 5 of 8 this Court refrains from entering into the question as to if a contractual employee can be transferred or not because, as argued by learned State Counsel, the same has become redundant upon regularization of the petitioner’s services in the meantime. Reference to the resolution dated 25.09.2024 would reveal that the Government decided to regularize the services of contractual ICDS supervisors working in different ICDS projects by creating equal numbers of temporary posts in Level-9 in order to absorb the contractual ICDS supervisors till their superannuation. The said resolution, inter alia, mentioned as follows:- “The posts so created is personal to the employee for whom it is created and no other employee can be appointed against such post, it would stand abolished as soon as the employee for whom it is created vacates it, on account of retirement or confirmation in another regular permanent post or for any other reason. The above ICDS Supervisors are to be placed at the bottom of the gradation list of ICDS Supervisors in their district as on date. The services flow financial benefits will accordingly and prospectively.” 9. Similar condition was mentioned in letters dated 26.09.2024 as well as 02.11.2024. The petitioner was posted in Rajnagar ICDS Project. It has been urged that the Page 6 of 8 post of Supervisor in Rajnagar ICDS Project is personal to the petitioner for which she could not have been transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to make out the above meaning from the sentence “post so created is personal to the employee for whom it is created and no other employee can be appointed against such post” 10. This Court is not inclined to accept the argument as above for the reason in view of its observation that the post was created and not with any specific place of posting attached. It means, a post was created to absorb persons like the petitioner, with the stipulation that such post cannot be filled up by any other person and would stand abolished upon vacation of the incumbent for any reason. It is nowhere mentioned that the post of ‘Supervisor in Rajnagar ICDS Project’ was created specifically for the petitioner. In fact, it could not have been so stipulated as it would be foreign to service jurisprudence. The resolution of the government was post- specific and not place-specific. This implies, the petitioner, Page 7 of 8 wherever posted, would be deemed to be posted against the post specifically created to accommodate her. It does not and cannot be that she has to be posted only in Rajnagar ICDS Project. As has been stated in the counter affidavit, the petitioner is a regular employee to whom all prevailing rules of the Government in Women’s and Child Development Department would apply. Transfer being an incidence of service, she cannot insist on being posted at a particular place. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner so as to be persuaded to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Resultantly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Signature Not Verified Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Digitally Signed The 20th August, 2025/ B.C. Tudu, Sr.Steno Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa HIgh Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:39:03 ..……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 8 of 8