Ramjit Kumar Hansda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramjit Kumar Hansda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ applications disposed of with directions: (i) revert Opposite Party No.6 (Arpan Kumar Pujari) to his still-vacant previous post as Assistant Executive Engineer, Hinjilicut, Ganjam; (ii) adjust the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025 at Barpali Block as Assistant Executive Engineer till his retirement (less than one year away); (iii) allow the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025 to continue at Bhatli Block till the next transfer chain is prepared; (iv) implementing orders within two weeks of communication of certified copy; (v) pay the first Petitioner's salary for the interim non-joining period by adjusting him against the Hinjilicut Block vacancy; and (vi) verify, regularise and pay salary dues for the period the second Petitioner discharged duties after being relieved. Urgent certified copy ordered as per Rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer of the Petitioner (Saroj Kumar Mohapatra), who has less than one year to retire (date of birth 29.04.1966), from Assistant Executive Engineer, Barpali Block to Assistant Executive Engineer, Bhatli Block, Bargarh vide order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-1) is unsustainable in law, inter alia because it is not as per the timing of transfer prescribed in the relevant government circular and because, per the circular, officers should ordinarily not be disturbed at the fag end of their careers. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court directed the Opposite Parties to revert Opposite Party No.6 to his previous post as Assistant Executive Engineer, Hinjilicut, Ganjam, which post is still lying vacant.

Ratio / Principle

In the vacancy arising after the reversion of Opposite Party No.6, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025, who is going to retire within less than one year, shall be adjusted at Barpali Block as Assistant Executive Engineer till his retirement.

Key takeaways

The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, namely Ramjit Kumar Hansda, shall be allowed to continue at Bhatli Block till the next transfer chain is prepared by the government.ratio¶38
Since the adjustment redresses the grievances of the Petitioners in both writ petitions including Opposite Party No.6, the Opposite Parties are directed to pass necessary orders implementing the adjustment within two weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — transfer near superannuation — two connected W.P.(C)s before the High Court of Orissa (single Justice bench) challenging the common transfer order dated 21.01.2025 (Order No. 0076-2024-1844/PR&DW) of Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil): (i) Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, with barely over a year to retire (DOB 29.04.1966), objected to his transfer from AEE, Barpali Block, Bargarh to AEE, Bhatli Block, Bargarh as violative of the General Administration Department guidelines dated 05.05.1994 on timing of transfers and non-disturbance at the fag end of career, and as not based on administrative grounds/public interest; (ii) Ramjit Kumar Hansda, in service at Bhatli Block and himself untransferred, opposed the incoming officer being posted to his station. Without adjudicating the legality of the transfer order, the Court disposed of both petitions by an equitable re-adjustment: Opposite Party No.6 (Arpan Kumar Pujari) was to be reverted to his still-vacant post at Hinjilicut, Ganjam; Mohapatra was to be adjusted back at Barpali Block till retirement; Hansda was to continue at Bhatli Block till the next transfer chain; implementation within two weeks; interim-period salary of the first Petitioner to be drawn through adjustment against the Hinjilicut vacancy; and the period during which Hansda discharged duties despite being relieved was to be verified, regularised and paid. Urgent certified copy ordered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.5258 of 2025

Saroj Kumar Mohapatra ..... Petitioner

Represented By Adv. - Suryakanta Dasmohapatra

-versus-

State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC

WP(C) No.2500 of 2025

Ramjit Kumar Hansda

..... Petitioner

Represented By Adv. – Banshidhar Satapathy

-versus-

State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

23.04.2025

Order No.

10.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsels for both the Petitioners as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ applications as well as the documents annexed thereto.

Page 1 of 6.

The Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025 with the following prayer:

“Therefore, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties and after hearing the parties may be pleased to quash the order dated 21.01.2025, under Annexure-1, to the extent of transfer of the petitioner from the post of transferring the petitioner from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Barpali Block, Dist.- Bargarh to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Bhatli Block Dist.- Bargarh, when the present petitioner has just more than one year to retire from service as his date of birth is 29.04.1966 and such order of transfer has been issued in violation of Government Guidelines dated 05.05.1994 issued by General Administration Department and this Hon'ble Court may further direct the Opp. parties to allow the petitioner to continue as Assistant Executive Engineer, Barpali Block, Dist.Bargarh till his retirement.

And/or to pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the facts of the case.”

Similarly, another Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025 with the following prayer:

“In this circumstances it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue notice to the Opp.parties, call for relevant records and after hearing the counsel of parties issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any

Page 2 of 6.

other appropriate writ quashing the impugned order No. 0076-2024-1844/PR&DW dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Opp.party No.1 in respect of the Opp.party No.5 allowing the petitioner to continue as Asst. Executive Engineer, Bhatli Block in the district of Bargarh as usual.

And/or pass such other order/orders direction/directions as deems fit and proper.”

On a careful examination of the pleadings in both the writ petitions as well as the prayer made by the Petitioners, this Court observes that the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected. Therefore, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together and they are being disposed of by the following order.

The grievance of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025, namely Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, is that the Petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 21.01.2025 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition from Barpali, Bargarh to Bhatli, Bargarh. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2025, learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is going to retire from government service very shortly, i.e. within a period of less than one year. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transfer of the Petitioner pursuant to the order under Annexure-1 has caused prejudice to the Petitioner as he has been transferred at the fag end of his career. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the transfer order reveals that the same is not on any administrative ground or in public interest. He

Page 3 of 6.

further contended that the chain of transfer under Annexure-1 is a routine transfer order of the Assistant Executive Engineers (Civil). On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transfer order under Annexure-1 is unsustainable in law on two grounds; Firstly, the same is not as per the timing of transfer provided in the relevant circular of the government. Secondly, in view of the circular of the government ordinarily the officer should not be disturbed at the fag end of his career.

In the connected writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the office order of transfer dated 21.01.2025 under Annexure-1 on the ground that although the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025 has been transferred to the place of the present Petitioner, however, the said transfer order does not reflect anything about the transfer of the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner is continuing at Bhatli, Bargarh and he has not been transferred to any other place, the transfer of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025 to his place of posting is being assailed by the Petitioner in the present petition.

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the State, on instruction, submitted that one Arpan Kumar Pujari, the Opposite Party No.6 in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025, has joined at Barpali Block, Bargarh in place of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction received vide order dated 19.04.2025, further submitted that a post of Assistant Executive Engineer in Hinjilicut, Ganjam, from which place the Opposite Party No.6 was transferred to Barpali Block, is still lying vacant.

Page 4 of 6.

Taking into consideration the background facts as well as the grievances of the Petitioners involved in both the writ petitions, further keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petitions by directing the Opposite Parties to revert the Opposite Party No.6 to his previous post as Assistant Executive Engineer, Hinjilicut, Ganjam, which is still lying vacant. In the vacancy that will arise after transfer of Opposite Party No.6 to Hinjilicut Block, the present Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025, who is going to retire shortly within a period of less than one year, be adjusted at Barpali Block as Assistant Executive Engineer till his retirement. Similarly, it is also directed that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, namely Ramjit Kumar Hansda be allowed to continue at Bhatli Block till the next transfer chain is prepared by the government. Since the aforesaid adjustment redresses the grievance of the Petitioners in both the writ petitions including the Opposite Party No.6 in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025, the Opposite Parties are directed to pass necessary orders implementing such adjustment within two weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. It is further clarified that since the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5258 of 2025 could not join at his new place of posting, as the same has been occupied by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, he may be adjusted against the vacancy of Hinjilicut Block for the purpose of drawal of his salary for the interim period for which he could not join his posting. Accordingly, the salary for such period be calculated and paid to the Petitioner by adjusting him against the post of Assistant Executive Engineer at Hinjilicut Block. It is further directed that one

Page 5 of 6.

Ramjit Kumar Hansda, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025, was although relieved, however, he has discharged his duties. The Opposite Parties are directed to verify the aforesaid fact, in the event it is found that the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2500 of 2025 was in fact discharging his duties within the aforesaid period, then the said Petitioner be regularized and necessary steps be taken to pay the salary as is due and admissible to such Petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ applications stand disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge

S.K. Rout

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Page 6 of 6. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 29-Apr-2025 18:33:45