IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36729 of 2025 Anuja Tarini Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. K. Prajwal, Advocate -versus-

1. State of Odisha …. Opposite Parties

2. Secretary, Department of Odia Language Literature and Culture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar

3. Additional-Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Odisha, Bhubaneswar Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

24.12.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the notification of transfer at Annexure-2 dated 10.12.2025 wherein the name of the Petitioner appears at Serial No.16 and whereby the Petitioner working as OSD, OLLC Department has been posted as Tahasildar, K.Nuagaon, Khandhamal.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner places on record by way of memo the posting order dated 31.10.2025 of the spouse of the Petitioner at Bhubaneswar. It is submitted on instruction that spouse of the Petitioner has joined recently.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though admittedly the transfer is an incidence of service but in terms of the communication of the then Special Secretary to Government in the GA Department dated 13.12.1991 to Secretaries of all Department laying down the policy relating to transfer and posting of couples employed under the State Government, the transfer of the Petitioner is in violation of the said communication which, is stated to be still in vogue.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the spirit of the communication is to allow the spouses to work at one station unless the same inter alia causes hindrance in administration.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the light of the posting of the husband of the Petitioner recently in Bhubaneswar the present order of transferring the Petitioner in effect negates the spirit of the above communication and it is further submitted that on a bare perusal of the order of transfer, it can be seen that no one has been posted in the place of the Petitioner. Hence, no administrative dislocation will be there in case the Petitioner is allowed to continue at her present place of posting in view of the recent transfer of her spouse to Bhubaneswar.

Hence, it is submitted that the order of transfer is liable to be interfered with.

7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that if the communication on which much reliance is placed is read in its entirety it does not give rise to any cause of action and the Petitioner cannot have the vested right to stay at a place where her spouse is posted.

8. It is on record that ventilating her grievance the Petitioner has made a representation to the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3 and attention of this Court is drawn to the recitals of the said representation wherein in essence cancellation of order of transfer is sought in the light of the policy of allowing spouses to be posted at one place.

9. This Court is conscious that transfer is an incidence of service and calls for least interference. Taking into account the special circumstances of the recent posting of the Petitioner’s spouse in Bhubaneswar and in the light of the communication at Annexure-3 which is stated to be still in vogue, this Court feels that on the ground of equity the case of the Petitioner merits consideration.

10. Accordingly, while not entertaining the writ petition, this Court calls upon the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner vide Annexure-4 in the light of the communication of the then Special Secretary adverted to hereinabove and take a decision within a period of four weeks hence. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner notwithstanding the order relieving the Petitioner which is submitted by way of memo and taken on record, since the writ petition was pending adj