IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C ) No.3610 of 2026 Rajlaxmi Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. A. Tripathy, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, Adv. COROM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 10.02.2026 3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: On the facts and in the circumstances stated above, your petitioners, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to; i) quash the impugned Office Order No.350 dt.27.01.2026 under Annexure-6 by holding the same as not only bad, illegal, ab-initio-void and a nullity in the eyes of law, but also contrary to the Finance Department Circular dt. 17.05.2008 under Annexure-7 read with orders of this Hon'ble Court under Annexure-3 & 4; and thereby direct the Opp. Parties to allow the Petitioners to continue at their respective places before ethe impugned order was passed, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. (iii) pass such other order as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play. And for which act of your kindness, the Petitioners shall, as in duty bound, ever pray; 5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that sine Petitioner is continuing on contractual basis since 2014 through out-sourcing, but vide the impugned order, he has been put under transfer to a different district. It is contended that since Petitioner is continuing on contractual basis through out-sourcing, Petitioner is not eligible for his transfer to a different districts, with such meagre salary that she is receiving from the agency concerned. 5.1. It is also contended that in view of the Circular issued by the Finance Deptt. on 17.05.2008 under Annexure-6, contractual employees are not liable for transfer to any other place. It is accordingly contended that the impugned Office order dt.27.01.2026 requires interference of this Court. 6. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since Petitioner is continuing through out-sourcing and the agency has not been made a party to the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that taking into account the exigency of service and the requirement, the arrangement vide Office order dt.27.01.2026 under Annexure-5 has been made. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, since it is not disputed that Petitioner is continuing on contractual basis through out-sourcing, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to make an application before Opp. party No.2 for re-consideration of the order dt.27.01.2026. 7.1. It is observed that if any such applications will be filed within a period of 2(two) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 2 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 4 (four)weeks from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 be communicated to the Petitioner. 7.2. Whie taking such a decision, observation made by this Court here-in-above shall be taken into consideration and so also the Circular issued by the Finance Deptt. on 17.05.2008 under Annexure-6. 8. Till a decision is taken as directed, interim order passed on 03.02.2026 shall continue. 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita