IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.A. No. 809 of 2025

Arpan Kumar Pujari …. Appellant

-Versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate

: Ms. Rajeswari Das & Ms. Prangyan Panda,

Advocates for Respondent No.6

: Mr. Satyabrata Satapathy, Advocate

For Respondent No.7

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing and Judgment: 24^th December, 2025

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The instant appeal arises from the impugned order dated 23^rd April, 2025 disposing of two writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.5258 and 2500 of 2025 filed by the respective contesting

parties challenging the order of transfer, which according to the Department, is a routine transfer. Several issues were raised, including the one that the transfer order should not have been passed when the employee is going to demit office within a year. The learned single Judge, without adverting to the nuances of law relating to the interference by the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, proceeded to dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions which remotely affected the order of transfer.

2. By virtue of the aforesaid order, the stagnancy is caused as the chain of transfer got disturbed and one of the employees, namely, Saroj Kumar Mohapatra (Resopndent No.6 herein) is placed in medio. He is neither permitted to continue with the present post nor can join the transferred post and grave injustice is perpetrated upon him by depriving him to get the salary since last several months.

3. The learned counsel representing the said employee fairly submits that the employee has no reservation in joining any post as he is aware of the service jurisprudence that the transfer is an incident of service and an employee can be placed at any place to the convenience of the employer.

4. We would have conveniently given a quietus to the issue as the administrative authorities have passed the necessary orders bearing in mind the sufferance of said Saroj Kumar Mohapatra but we feel that the scope and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to be reiterated and recapitulated.

5. All the counsels appearing for the respective parties have echoed in one voice that the writ Court exercising power of judicial review should not ordinarily interfere with the order of transfer as it is always regarded as an incident of service.

5.1. One of the earlier judgments placed before us was delivered in the case of B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, wherein, the apex Court, in unequivocal term, held that the order of transfer does not ipso facto be perceived to the disadvantage of a Government servant nor overrides any of the conditions of service as the same is an ordinary incident of service and it would be incongruous to suggest that a Government officer posted at a particular place acquired a vested right to remain in the same place. However, an exception is carved out if the power of transfer is abused and/or actuated with malice and above all, in colorable exercise of powers vested upon the employer in the following:

“4. The learned Judges observe that these penalties can be imposed on a government servant where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him under the Rules by the competent authority. They further observe that Rule 18 of the Rules therefore provides for appeals against orders imposing penalties referred to and specified in Rule 8, and add:

“If an order of transfer does not amount to an order of penalty or ‘any other order’ falling within Rule 19, such an order does not attract and is not appealable either under Rule 18 or Rule

19.”

We agree with the