Judgment

B.R. Sarangi, J.

In these batch of petitions, the petitioners have challenged the office orders dated 26.06.2013 and 29.11.2014 issued by the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd transferring them from one place to other and directing them to join in respective transfer places by relieving them w.e.f. 26.06.2013 with immediate effect.

2. The short fact of the case in hand is that in order to procure and distribute essential commodities, the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. has been established to regulate the Public Distribution System of the State. All the petitioners are continuing as Sales Assistant-cum-Godown Assistant under the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. on “Ad hoc and until further orders basis” and are continuing for more than 10 years in a particular station. They have been transferred vide impugned order in Annexure-1. Challenging the said order of transfer, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present applications.

3. Mr. G.K. Mishra and Mr. G.K. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the petitioners being the “ad hoc and until further order basis” employees of the Corporation, unless their service is regularized, they cannot be transferred by the authority. It is stated that transfer being a concept of continuity in service, without regularization in service, the impugned order of transfer cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Therefore, they seek for interference of this Court.

4. Mr. A.K. Mishra and Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation state that the petitioners being the employees of the Corporation may it be “ad hoc or until further orders” they have been continuing in a particular place for more than 10 years. On the basis of the decision of the Board of Directors, the impugned orders of transfer have been issued and as such transfer being an incidence of service, it will no way prejudice the petitioners and they have to comply the same in letter and spirit. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Subash Chandra Routray v. Managing Director, Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and others, 2005 (II) OLR 643, it is urged that the petitioners will be allowed to continue in services and their services shall not be dispensed with and further the corporation shall regularize them as and when regular vacancies are available. They may be deputed to any other project or assignment under the management/control of the corporation. Therefore, it is urged that since the petitioners are still continuing in service and they being the employees of the corporation, they can be transferred by the impugned order.

5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, it is to be considered as to whether:

i) The corporation can transfer the petitioners, those who are working “ad hoc” and “until further orders basis” being an “employee” of the corporation;

ii) If not, what relief ?

6. On the basis of the materials available on record, it is admitted by the petitioners that they are continuing as employees of the corporation holding the post of Sales Assistant-cum-Godown Assistant either “ad hoc” or “until further orders basis” and they are all waiting for regularization of their services subject to availability of vacancy. It is urged that “ad hoc” or “until further order basis” category persons unless their services is regularized, they cannot be transferred by the authority. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer has to be quashed by this Court.

7. The moot question is whether “ad hoc” or “until further order basis” employees are the employees of the corporation or not. In E.S.I. Corporation v. South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd, AIR 1986 SC 1686, the apex Court held that “casual employees” are employees within the meaning of the term “employee” as defined in Section 2 (9) of the Act and, accordingly, come within the purview of the Act. In All India Bank Officers’ Confederation v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2