The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.26295 of 2024 Manasish Mishra ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Subhransu Bhusan Mohanty -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Collector, Angul 3) Sub-collector, Pallahara 4) Tahasildar, Talcher ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms.Babita Kumari Sahoo, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 14.02.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petitioner has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 01.10.2024 issued by the Tahsildar, Talcher and the consequential order of deputation dated 05.10.2024 issued by the Collector, Angul on the ground that the same is violative of O.M.S. (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Junior Assistant, Senior Assistant, Section Officers in the District Offices) Rules, 2019. The Petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the Opposite Page 1 of 6. Parties to retrain him in the Office of the Tashildar, Talcher or to return back to the post which he was holding earlier i.e. Special L.A.O. (NALCO), Angul by considering his representation dated 19,06.2024 and other consequential relief. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, who has been working as Senior Revenue Assistant was transferred from the Block Office, Athamallik to Spl.L.A.O.(NALCO), Angul vide order dated 13.06.2022 under Annexure-1. While he was working as Special L.A.O.(NALCO), Angul, he was relieved vide order dated 21.03.2022 by the Collector, Angul under Annexure-2, thereafter he was asked to continue his service in the Block Office, Athamallik. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitoner further contended that on 13.06.2024 another order was passed by the Collector, Angul
Decision
under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition whereby the Petitioner was transferred from the Office of the Special LAO (NALCO), Angul to the Tahsil Office, Talcher. While he was working as senior Assistant in the Office of the Tahsildar, the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 was passed by the Tahsildar, Talcher under Annexure-6 thereby relieving the Petitioner from his duty with effect from 01.10.2024 with a further direction to hand over detail charges to Shakti Bikash Behera, SRA, Talcher immediately. Few days thereafter the Collector, Angul passed order under Annexure-7 whereunder the Petitioner, who was relieved from the Tahsil Office, Talcher was posted to the Office of the District Planning & Monitoring Unit, Angul and deputed to the Office of the Sub-Collector, Pallahara. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 01.10.2024 and 05.10.2024 under Annexures-6 & 7 respectively, the Petitioner has approached this Page 2 of 6. Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that although the Petitioner was posted in the Tahsil Office, Talcher vide order dated 13.06.2022, however he was again transferred by order dated 05.10.2024 to the Office of the Sub- Collector, Pallahara. He further contended that earlier the Petitioner was also transferred and posted as Special L.A.O.(NALCO), Angul vide order dated 13.06.2022 and that he has not completed even three years at Angul, he was transferred to the Office of the Tahsildar, Talcher. After few days, he was posted in the Office of the Tahsildar, Talcher, he was again transferred to the Office of the Sub-Collector, Pallahara. Being aggrieved by such transfer as well as illness of his wife, the Petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur by filing a representation dated 07.10.2024 under Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. However, the grievance of the Petitioner remains unredressed. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the 2019 Rules contended the said Rule clearly provides that the transfer season as per the Government calendar between 15th April to 15th June of every year. However, in violation of the aforesaid Rules, the Petitioner has been transferred in the middle of the year thereby putting the Petitioner and his family into a lot of inconvenience. Additionally, learned counsel for the Petitioner questions the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Tahsildar, Talcher. In the said context, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the said order is without jurisdiction as the Tahsildar, Talcher is not the appointing and Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner. In the aforesaid factual Page 3 of 6. backdrops, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both the impugned orders under Annexure-6 & 7 are liable to be quashed. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand referring to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 contended that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order under Annexures-6 & 7. She further contended that the transfer is a incidence of service, therefore the Petitioner is not within the discretion/option to choose his place of posting. She further contended that the concerned authority under whom the Petitioner has been posted can very well transfer the Petitioner keeping in view the administrative convenience. Learned Additional Government Advocate also contended that the illness of the wife cannot alone be a ground for transfer of the Petitioner. She further submitted that the provisions of 2019 Rules has not been violated by the Opposite parties while passing the impugned order under Annexure-6 & 7. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for both sided, further taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto and further on a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsels of the parties, this Court found that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order under Annexures-6 & 7 has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. Vide Annexurre-6 the Petitioner has been relieved from his post as Senior Revenue Assistant, Page 4 of 6. Office of the Tahsildar, Talcher by the Tahsildar Talcher. It is not disputed by both parties that the Tahsildar, Talcher is not the competent or Disciplinary Authority for the present Petitioner. Further, this Court found that the Petitioner has a ground to ventialate his grievance considering the fact that he has been frequently transferred. Moreover, a report of the Chief District Medical Officer & Public Health Officer, Angul furnished before this Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 10.01.2025. On perusal of the report, it appears that the wife of the Petitioner is also ailing. It is not disputed by both the parties that the normal transfer as per 2019 Rule is between 15th April to 15th June of every year. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has a valid point to be reconsidered by the competent authority. 10. On a careful analysis of the factual documents as well as the legal position, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Collector Angul by filing a fresh representation along with supporting documents within a week from today. In such eventuality, the Collector, Angul shall consider the representation of the Petitioner in view of the observation made herein above further keeping in view the Rule 2019 and dispose of the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The representation of the Petitioner shall be disposed of by passing a speaking a reasonable order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. 11. Further it is directed that in the event the Petitioner has not Page 5 of 6. been paid his salary in the meantime, liberty is given to the Petitioner to approach the competent authority for disbursal of his salary as is due and admissible to the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the admissible dues of the Petitioner shall be disbursed within two weeks from the date of communication of the copy of this order. 12. It is also directed that till the representation of the Petitioner is considered by Opposite Party no.2 as has been directed hereinabove, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner for a period of six weeks or till disposal of the representation. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Feb-2025 11:13:42