Disposed¶25

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Dec 2024WP(C)/4281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2022), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 02.12.2024; Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray v. State of Odisha and Others; transfer/posting dispute; office order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure-2); rejection order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-8); notification dated 04.10.2018 (Department of School and Mass Education; around six years' tenure); subsequent notification dated 19.08.2023; W.P.(C) No.39474 of 2021; quashing of impugned order; fresh decision by O.P. No.2 within four weeks; status quo; disposed of; Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-8); fresh decision by O.P. No.2 on the petitioner's posting claim in terms of notification dated 19.08.2023 within 4 weeks; status quo maintained until the decision. ¶25

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's claim to continue in his original place of posting — for which he contended eligibility under the notification dated 04.10.2018 to stay at a place for around six years — was validly rejected by the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-8), that order allegedly not following the said stipulation, and whether it warranted quashing/interference.

¶19

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 under Annexure-8.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

O.P. No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision on the petitioner's claim to continue in his original place of posting, taking into account the stipulation contained in the notification dated 19.08.2023.

¶24

Key takeaways

The fresh decision is to be taken within a period of 4 (four) weeks from receipt of this order; till then, status quo as on today with regard to continuance of the petitioner is to be maintained.ratio¶24
The petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with notification dated 19.08.2023 before O.P. No.2 for compliance.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2022, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy), decided 02.12.2024. Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray v. State of Odisha and Others: the petitioner challenged the order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-8) rejecting his claim to continue at his original place of posting after transfer by office order dated 07.12.2021 (Annexure-2), contending that O.P. No.2, acting in terms of this Court's order in W.P.(C) No.39474 of 2021, did not follow the stipulation of the Department of School and Mass Education notification dated 04.10.2018 (around six years' tenure at a place). The Court disposed of the petition, quashing the impugned order and directing O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim in terms of the subsequent notification dated 19.08.2023 within four weeks of receipt, maintaining status quo meanwhile; the petitioner was directed to provide a copy of the order and the notification to O.P. No.2 for compliance.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.4281 of 2022

¶3

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

02.12.2024

¶12

Order No. 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶14

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 29.01.2022 under Annexure8. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for being allowed to continue in his original place of posting from which he has been disturbed vide office order dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-2 was not acceded to.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 under

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

Annexure-2 was passed contrary to the notification issued by the Govt. in the department of School and Mass Education on 04.10.2018, this Court initially while protecting the interest of the petitioner, directed O.P. No.2 to take a decision.

¶18

4. 1. It is contended that without following the provisions contained in Notification dated 04.10.2018 in letter and spirit, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 under Annexure-8. It is also contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide letter dated 17.02.2022, passed an interim order by staying operation of the original order of transfer passed on 07.12.2021 under Annexure-2.

¶19

4. 2. It is contended that since in terms of the notification issued on 04.10.2018, petitioner is eligible to continue in a particular place for around 6 (six) years, any transfer made prior to completion of the said term is not sustainable in the eye of law. O.P. No.2 while rejecting the petitioner’s claim in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.39474 of 2021 since never followed the said stipulation, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

¶20

5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand brought to the notice of this Court a subsequent notification issued by the Govt. vide notification dated 19.08.2023. It is contended that O.P. No.2 is ready and

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

willing to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the notification issued on 19.08.2023.

¶24

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the impugned order dated 29.01.2022 under Annexure-8, directs O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner to continue in his original place of posting from which he has been put under transfer vide office order dated 07.12.2021 under Annexure-2, in terms of the notification issued on 19.08.2023. This Court directs O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision taking into account the stipulation contained in the notification dated 19.08.2023, within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till a decision is taken as directed, status-quo as on today with regard to continuance of the petitioner be maintained. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with notification dated 19.08.2023 before O.P. No.2 for compliance.

¶25

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶26

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Basudev

¶29

Digitally Signed Basudev Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Dec-2024 11:25:31

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhansu Sekhar Rautaray v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Biswal Vs State of Orissa

Sabitarani Chand Vs State of Odisha

Jasobant Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Dipak Kumar Khatua Vs State of Orissa

Pradeep Kumar Khatua Vs State of Orissa

Ashok Ku.Mallick Vs State and Ors.