IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, J.
Surya Narayan Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) Nos. 12584, 24671 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2021
OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 - Rule 24 - M.P. Panchayat Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam - Section 6(2) - Working as Financial Consultant - Consolidated remuneration - Seeking to quash order - Contractual employees working under Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) in different capacities seeking to quash orders of transfer issued against them - They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, which will govern in both cases - Factual matrix which has given rise to filing of W.P. (C) No. is that petitioner therein was engaged as Financial Consultant in DPO, SSA/DPEP, Malkangiri on contractual basis vide office order dated with remuneration per month - While he was so continuing, he was disengaged and again re-engaged vide office order dated - Whether a further controlling tool in hands of a particular number of a particular caste or tribe as well as woman is affirmative or necessary.
Finding of the Court:
If issue involved herein is considered from other angle, in absence of any provision contained in OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 for transfer of contractual employees read with so called guidelines issued as well as proceedings of 36th Executive Committee meeting of OPEPA held which lacked quorum - Taking into consideration above meaning of jurisdiction and applying same to present context, it is made clear that in absence of any provision contained in OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 read with guidelines dated and decision taken in 36th Meeting of Executive Committee of OPEPA held with regard to formulation of transfer/deployment policy as per clause-11.2 thereof, impugned orders passed by authority transferring petitioners, who are contractual employees are without jurisdiction.
Result: Writ petitions are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
1. Surya Narayan Mishra, while working as Financial Consultant in the District Project Office (DPO), SS, Kendrapara on contractual basis with a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 6,000/- per month, has filed W.P. (C) No. 12584 of 2019 seeking to quash the order dated 17.07.2019 under Annexure-2, by which he has been transferred to DPO, SS Bolangir on administrative ground.
Whereas Rajashree Pattanaik, who was working as Coordinator Pedagogy in the DPO, SS Khordha on contractual basis and has been transferred to DPO, SS, Rayagada on administrative ground vide office order dated 17.07.2019 under Annexure-1, has filed W.P. (C) 24671 of 2020 challenging the order dated 23.09.2020 under Annexure-5, by which opposite party no. 2 has directed the petitioner to obey the office order dated 17.07.2019 and to join at DPO, SS, Rayagada as per OSEPA office order no. 5036 dated 17.07.2019 positively, failing which action shall be taken against her as per the Service Rules and Regulations, 1996.
2. Essentially, both the writ petitions have been filed by the contractual employees working under the Odisha Primary Education Programme Authority (OPEPA) in different capacities seeking to quash the orders of transfer issued against them. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, which will govern in both the cases.
3. The factual matrix which has given rise to filing of W.P. (C) No. 12584 of 2019 is that the petitioner therein was engaged as Financial Consultant in the DPO, SSA/DPEP, Malkangiri on contractual basis vide office order dated 17.08.2004 with remuneration of Rs. 6,000/- per month. While he was so continuing, he was disengaged and again re-engaged vide office order dated 10.11.2005 at DPO, Ganjam, While working as such, again he was re-engaged at DPO, SS, Kendrapara vide office order dated 12.05.2008 and continuing as such till the impugned order of transfer was passed by the authority on 17.07.2019, by which he has been transferred from DPO, SS, Kendrapara to DPO, SS Bolangir.
4. The factual matrix which led to filing of W.P. (C) No. 24671 of 2020 is that the petitioner therein was initially engaged as Coordinator Pedagogy in the DPO, Sambalpur on contractual basis. Thereafter, she was transferred to DPC Office, Angul on 17.06.2010 and subsequently she was placed at DPC Office, Keonjhar on 10.08.2010. Again, the authority deployed her in the Head Office of OPEPA and after cancellation of deputation period, the petitioner was again posted at DPC Office, Keonjhar. Then, she was posted at DPC Office, Khurda, vide office order dated 23.08.2016, and while so continuing she has been transferred, vide office order dated 17.07.2019, to DPO, SS, Rayagada on administrative ground as Financial Consultant. Against the order of transfer dated 17.07.2019 under Annexure-1, she filed W.P. (C) No. 12585 of 2019, wherein as an interim measure this Court stayed operation of the said transfer order. Despite that, opposite party no. 2, vide office order dated 23.09.2020, compelled her to carry on the order of transfer dated 17.07.2019 by joining at DPO, SS, Rayagada, failing which action shall be taken against her as per OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996.
5. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions contended that to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the OPEPA, under Clause-5(n) of the Memorandum of Association of the Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority read with Rule 36 of the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, “The Orissa Primary Education Programme Authority Service Regulations, 1996” were framed. It is contended that in the said OPEPA Service Rules and Regulations, 1996 there is no provision for transfer of OPEPA employees from one place to other, nor has any transfer policy been framed by the OPEPA till 2018. But, for the first time, on 17.12.2018 guidelines for transfer of contractual employees wo
B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka
Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi vs. V.B. Raju
Harpal Singh vs. State of Punjab
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan
Official Trustee West Bengal vs. Sachindranath Chaterjee
Punjab University, Chandigarh vs. Vijay Singh Lamba
Raja Soap Factory vs. S.P. Shantharaj
Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India
Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1621
State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal
Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar
Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India
Than Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.