Court reiterates non-interference in transfer orders barring mala fide or rule violation; resolves salary and service continuity for affected employee.
In a significant decision delivered on December 24, 2025, the Orissa High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of a government employee transfer order, reinforcing the principle that transfers are an inherent aspect of service and usually not subject to judicial interference. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, adjudicated on the appeal of Arpan Kumar Pujari against the State of Odisha regarding a routine transfer order.
The court emphasized that judicial intervention in transfer orders should only occur under extraordinary circumstances, such as cases of mala fide, arbitrariness, or violations of statutory rules. The judgment cited previous Supreme Court rulings underscoring that transfer is an incident of service, and employees do not have a vested right to remain at any specific location. The court reiterated that administrative decisions should be respected unless exceptions, such as malice or statutory non-compliance, are evident.
The case involved administrative complications where an employee, Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, was unable to assume his transferred position due to pending court orders and administrative delays, affecting his salary and service benefits. The court directed the authorities to ensure that Mohapatra receives all due salary arrears and clarified that his service continuity for pension purposes must remain unbroken.
The judgment referenced several landmark Supreme Court cases, including B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Shilpi Bose (Mrs) v. State of Bihar, which collectively affirm the limited scope of judicial review concerning transfer orders. The court cautioned against routine interference with administrative decisions, which could lead to inefficiencies and chaos in public service management.
The bench acknowledged the administrative authorities' pragmatic resolution of the case, highlighting the commendable efforts of the Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Saswat Das, in addressing the salary and service continuity issues for Mohapatra. The court's directives ensure that Mohapatra's rights are safeguarded, with a clear path for administrative compliance within four weeks.
This judgment reinforces the judicial stance on non-interference in service transfers, setting a precedent for future cases unless compelling evidence of malfeasance or rule-breaking is presented.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of government employees - Judicial review of transfer orders by the writ court should be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances like mala fide, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory rules or guidelines.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Service Law principles on transfer, Judicial Review principles
Arpan Kumar Pujari v. State of Odisha, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2836067
