Dinabandhu Mohapatra vs TELECOMMUNICATION on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the order dated 10.11.2025 transferring him from Cuttack to Baripada has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To quash the order of transfer dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure A/3) in respect of the applicant in Sl. No. 1 and allow him to continue at present at Cuttack.

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred by the applicant in the OA is as follows:

Kalpeswar Behera

2.1 That, the applicant was appointed and engaged as a Casual Labourer / Mazdoor on 01.10.1996 by the Department of Telecommunication and by virtue of the order dated 08.5.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9790 of 2009 the applicant was conferred with Temporary Status Mazdoor provisionally on 04.12.2009. By then the applicant was continuing under the Divisional Engineer, N.O.W-I,Cuttack. Prior to 04.12.2009, the applicant was placed / posted at different stations i.e Cuttack, Jagatsinghpur, Bir- Maharajpur, Bolangir and at present continuing at Cuttack. 2.2 That, fact remains, the service condition of Casual Labourers and Temporary Status Mazdoors are being regulated by a Scheme i.e. Casual Labouers' (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme issued by the Department of Telecommunication, 1989. The said Scheme came into force with effect from 01.10.1989 onwards. It is pertinent to mention here that the Casual Labourers having been conferred with Temporary Status would not be involved in any change in their duties and responsibilities and they wll be deployed anywhere within their Recruitment Unit/Territorial Circle on the basis of availability of work. For the shake of clarification regarding Recruitment Unit

Kalpeswar Behera and Territorial Circle, it is humbly submitted that Recruitment Unit means where the applicant faced Recruitment Test, selected and appointed. Territorial Circle means it is within the territorial zone i.e outside the recruitment unit. Cuttack is the recruitment Unit of the applicant where he was recruited, selected, posted and continued to discharge his duties to the utmost saisfacion of all superior Authorities. So, there is no reason or in any circumstances, the applicant is to be posted in the outside Recruitment Unit whatsoever which is contrary to the Scheme framed by the Government of India. 2.3 That, while the aforesaid Scheme was/is operating and the same being a guiding factor to regulate the Service Condition of Casual Labourers, are to be eligible for confirmation of Temporary Status and regular Temporary Status, the Authority ought not to by-pass/override such Rule/Scheme in order to put the Casual Labourer having the Temporary status Mazdoor into disadvantageous position. That, the applicant claiming to be entitled for conferment of Temporary Status and regularisation, had approached to the learned C.G.I.T-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in the year 2001 where an AWARD was passed on 19.5.2003 allowing him conferment of Temporary Status and

Kalpeswar Behera regularisation with effect from 1996 with consequential service benefits. The said matter of AWARD was challenged by the Management before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.9101 of 2003.The Hon'ble High Court after hearing the parties disposed of the said Writ Petition vide judgment dated 22.6.2007 by setting aside the part of order of REGULARISATION and up-held the conferment of Temporary Status taking into consideration the rendering/entry of service. Thereafter, the said order dated 22.6.2007 was challenged by the Managemet in Writ Appeal No.53/2007 and while the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said Writ Appeal on 07.11.2008, confirmed the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court. The Management instead of implementing the order of the Hon'ble High Court, challenged the order dated 07.11.2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) No.9790 of 2009. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the case, declined to grant STAY and directed that interim judgment dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Orissa High Court shall be worked out. On the basis of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Divisional Engineer, E.T.R, Cuttack granted Temporary Status Provisionally assigning the

Kalpeswar Behera entry of the applicant as Workman in the department on 01.10.1996. So, it is admitted by the respondents that the date of entry of the applicant is on 01.10.1996 is the vital aspect to be considered. 2.4 That, while the applicant is continuing in the department, all on a sudden an Office Order dated 28.10.2025 was issued by the Divisional Engineer (Admin) of the Office of P.G.M,CNTXE, Bhubaneswar by transferring 4(Four) employees whose names are in Sl.No.1-A.Nageswar Rao, Sl. No.2-Akshaya Kumar Pati, Sl.No.3-Sarbeswar Mohanty & Sl.No.4-Sangram Keshari Singh. The employees named in Sl.Nos.1,2 and 3 of the order dated 28.10.2025 have requested to the Administrative Authority for their transfer to their respective place of choice and accordingly their request was accepted and they have been posted in their respective place of choice. Sl.No.4-Sangram Keshari Singh was transferred to O.F.C Station, Baripada in the said order. Upon receipt of the order dated 28.10.2025, Sl.No.4-Sangram Keshari Singh requested to the Authority to modify/cancel his transfer order by permitting him to continue under the Divisional Engineer, N.O.W-I, Cuttack.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.5 That after issuance of such Office Order dated 28.10.2025, the said Authority perhaps considered the request of Sangram Keshari Singh (Sl.No.4 of the order dated 28.10.2025), modified the order dated 28.10.2025 by cancelling his place of posting at Baripada and in his place, posted the present applicant- Dinabandhu Mohapatra at Baripada vide order dated 10.11.2025. It is pertinent to mention here that the Administrative Authority on being approached by the employees in Sl.Nos.1 to 3 passed order by placing them in their respective place of choice i.e at Cuttack and Berhampur respectively. The said Authority on being approached by the employee in Sl.No.4, modified and cancelled his order of transfer to Baripada. Even no request was on behalf of the applicant; he has been transferred and posted at Baripada. 2.6 That, after receipt of the order dated 10.11.2025 the applicant being HEART PATIENT having Cardiac problem and undergoing treatment, became harassed and carrying his father (95 years old-ailing and incapable to walk) met the Authority concerned, explaining all the intolerable and panic situations, submitted a representation praying therein to modify his transfer order. Besides, the applicant is unfortunate that few days later

Kalpeswar Behera l.e. on 07.12.2025 his father passed away. There is no other male member except his two children who are prosecuting their study at Salepur and Nemalo college within Cuttack district and their final examination is ahead. As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the midst of academic session, transfer of government employee who is guardian/parents of the student, is a bar. Inspite of such precarious situation, the representation dated 10.11.2025 of the applicant has not been considered. 2.7 That, the subject matter of challenge is for cancellation of Transfer Order dated 10.11.2025 which being contrary to relevant guide line, is not sustainable in the eye of law. Cancellation of transfer order in respect of similarly placed employees and non-consideration of the prayer of the applicant for modification/cancellation of his transfer order on the ground of valid/genuine reasons, is discriminatory attitude of the Authority which contravenes the Article-14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2.8 For that, the Respondents fails to appreciate the predicament of the applicant which has been reflected in his representation and acted illegally and arbitrarily by putting him

Kalpeswar Behera

in disadvantageous position by transferring from Cuttack to Baripada which is contrary to the relevant rules, guide lines, circulars as well as Scheme, 1989. The Transfer Order dated 10.11.2025 being not sustainable in the eye of law, is liable to be quashed.

3. The respondents have filed reply inter alia averring as follows: 3.1 That, the applicant was appointed as Temporary Status Mazdoor w.e.f.04.12.2009 and posted at Telephone Bhawan Cuttack under Divisional Engineer (NWO-II) Cuttack.That, the transfer order was issued on 28.10.2025 in favour of four TSMs in a chain. Out of which three have completed 15 years of service at their present station. 3.2 That, the modified transfer order was issued considering the longer stay among available TSMs in the controlling unit from where the transferees working. The applicant of the OA has been transferred to OFC Station, Baripada Telephone Exchange, Baripada.That, the applicant was detained at his headquarter till joining of his substitute. Sri Sarbeswar Mohanty TSM joined at Cuttack on 09-12-2025 as the substitute of the applicant.

Kalpeswar Behera

3.3 That, the applicant applied leaves from 07-12-2025 to 20- 12-2025 for the funeral and post funeral rituals of his father. Again he applied leave for 21-12-2025 to 03-01-2026 for sickness of his mother. The controlling officer approved the leave. That, the applicant relieved from the working strength of Divisional Engineer (NWO-II) Cuttack on the F/N of 08-01-2026 and was instructed to report for duty at Baripada under Divisional Engineer (NWO-I) Cuttack. 3.4 That, according to the service conditions in the appointment order of the applicant, "Conferment of temporary status on workmen in dispute would not involve any change of the duties and responsibility. The engagement will be on daily basis rate of pay and need basis. They may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circles on the basis of availability of work. Such workmen in dispute will not however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are through selection process for regularising in Group-D post." 3.5 That, the Deputy General Manager ETR Bhubaneswar (Deputy General Manager CNTXE Bhubaneswar) is the recruiting unit and Odisha is the Territorial Circle. The applicant is transferred within the Territorial Circle and recruiting unit area.

Kalpeswar Behera

That, the transfers are carried out in CNTXE Bhubaneswar to fulfil the vacancies due to retirement/ death/ workload or in exigencies. During transfer, the pending requests from other employees are considered who are serving in difficult areas /remote from home stations. However, length of stay of an employee at a station is taken as one criterion for out station transfers among other fellow employees of same cadre. 3.6 That, the transfer of the applicant is purely as per administrative requirement of the department and it has no link with conferment of temporary status. That, the applicant has claimed his sons studying in Cuttack, which is not correct. He has submitted the supporting document which shows both are above 18 years of age and studying at outside Cuttack. 3.7 That, with regard to the averment made by the applicant that Sri Sangram Keshari Singh has been retained at Cuttack in order to accommodate the applicant, the same is wholly incorrect and denied. It is submitted that Sri Sangram Keshari Singh joined at Cuttack only about five years back. Considering the tenure of continuance and since the applicant has completed more than fifteen years at his present place of posting, it has been decided by the competent authority to allow Sri Sangram

Kalpeswar Behera

Keshari Singh to continue at his present place of posting and to direct the applicant to work at Baripada. 3.8 That, it is respectfully submitted that, as stated hereinbefore, while effecting the transfer, the tenure of all concerned employees who were continuing at their respective places of posting has been duly taken into consideration. That, it is further submitted that at Baripada, the officials who were earlier working there have since retired. In order to manage and ensure the smooth functioning of official work, the applicant has been transferred to Baripada. It is submitted that the transfer has been made purely in administrative exigency and no illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide has been committed by the authorities.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The law regarding interference of Court in transfer of an employee is now well settled. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide its judgment dated 04.09.2020 in CMP No. 3311 of 2020 (Ghanshyam Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another) has listed various decisions relating to the cases of transfer and summarized the findings of the Court in para 9 which read as under:

Kalpeswar Behera

“1. Transfer is a condition of service.

2. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee.

3. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time.

4. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required.

5. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure.

6. There is very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in contravention of the statutory Rules or mala fides are established.

7. In case of mala fides, the employee has to make specific averments and should prove the same by adducing impeccable evidence.

8. The person against whom allegations of mala fide is made should be impleaded as a party by name.

9. Transfer policy or guidelines issued by the State or employer does not have any statutory force as it merely provides for guidelines for the understanding of the department personnel.

10. The court does not have the power to annul the transfer order only on the ground that it will cause personal inconvenience to the employee, his family members and children as consideration of these views fall within the exclusive domain of the employer.

11. If the transfer order is made in mid-academic session of the children of the employee, the Court/Tribunal cannot interfere. It is for the employer to consider such a personal grievance.”

6. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532, Hon’ble Apex Court said that transfer

Kalpeswar Behera order does not violate any of the legal rights of Government servant since he has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and observed that "Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights."

7. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose (supra), dealing with similar issue, Hon’ble Apex Court said that even if transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order and instead affected party should approach higher authorities in the Department.

8. In Union of India & others Vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444, in para 7 of the judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that "The said guidelines, however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right”. Further an employee cannot demand that they be treated the same as another employee who hasn't been transferred, because transfers are generally based on the organization's requirements, therefore the contention of ld. Counsel for the applicant that others who have completed their tenure haven’t been transferred is not tenable.

9. Further in the case of S.C. Saxena v. Union of India and others 3, it has been held, that a government servant cannot

Kalpeswar Behera disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems.

10. Therefore in view of the above discussions and settled position of law, since the guidelines referred to by learned counsel for the applicant is not statutory and therefore there not being any violation of statutory provisions, the OA is dismissed. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera