Judgment The instant writ petition is directed against some orders of transfer passed by Inspector General of Prisons, West Bengal on different dates 14.12.1990, 5.3.1991 and 7.3.1991 (being Annexure-A of the Writ Petition) transferring the petitioners who are Warders, except the petitioner No.5 who is Head Warder under the Dum Dum Central Jail Circle transferring them to different jails in different circles, viz., Berhampur Circle and Midnapore Circle. 2. The West Bengal Jail Administration is divided into 5 separate circles, each circle is comprised of different District and Subsidiary Jails forming the circle. Some of the petitioners have been transferred to Cooch Behu District Jail which is comprised within Berhampur Circle and some of the petitioners have been transferred to Purulia District Jail which is comprised within Midnapur Central Jail. Petitioners who are at the moment working in the Dum Dum Central Jail were appointed by the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Jail the Appointing Authority and Choir inter-se seniority as reflected in the Gradation List prepared and maintained by Dum Dum Jail Circle petitioners were posted in different jails during their service career and all their prior transfer from one jail to other were made strictly within Dum Dum Central Jail Circle. 3. Petitioners are aware that transfer is an incident of service and they were subjected to transfers from one jail to another but such transfers were strictly confined within the circle in terms of jail code. Petitioners made representations against the impugned order of transfer stilting that they were will in to be pointed in any jail within the Dum Dum Circle. The principal contentions of the petitioners in the writ application are that under the Jail code which has statutory force and which governs jail employees, warden and head warders etc. are governed by provisions contained in the said jail code. 4. An examination of Rules 303, 304 and 305 particularly of Rule 305 would make it clear that Superintendent of each circle Jail shall punish "Circle List" containing the names "Circle numbers" and other particulars of every Head Warder and Warder of the circle arranged in order of seniority. This being the position, transfer outside the circle would entail adverse civil consequence inescapably as far as inter-se seniority, position in the gradation list, right to be concerned for promotion to the next higher post etc. are concerned. This being the position, transfer outside the circle would entail adverse civil consequence inescapably as far as inter-se seniority, position in the gradation list, right to be concerned for promotion to the next higher post etc. are concerned. Transfer within the circle is permissible as such transfer will no, entail adverse consequence as regard inter-se seniority, position in the gradation list, promotional pospect etc. 5. It is therefore submitted that transfer outside the circle is clearly impermissible so long Rule 305 remaining in the jail code. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents with the affidavit sworn by the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Jail. 7. It is submitted that Inspector General of prisons may transfer any jail employee from one station to another in West Bengal as per jail code Rule 166 read with Rule 294 and JCR 21 and 22 copies of which have been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure "A", that such transfer order was very much necessary for administrative measures according to rules and was made after proper application of mind. It is denied that the same is mala fide or discriminatory. It is also submitted that the seniority of the petitioners will be maintained without prejudice to their rights and benefits. It is therefore denied the impugned orders of transfer are arbitrary and would prejudice the petitioners service conditions and inter-se seniority as alleged. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the writ petitioners reiterating all the contentions in the writ petition and refuting the contentions of the Respondents that the inter-se seniority will be maintained even if they are transferred out the circle. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate for both the parties. 9. On behalf of the writ petitioners Mr. Kashi Kanta Maitra has drawn my attention to Rules 303, 304 and 305 and specially to Rule 305. Those rules are reproduced below :- "303- A service register (No. 4) shall be kept at the circle Jail containing, in respect of every Chief Head Warder, Head Warder and Warder of the circle, particulars of appointment, promotion, native district, all districts in which service has been passed and in which serving, rewards, offences and punishments, and leave taken with date of each change or occurrence. Every offence committed shall bear a consecutive number in order of date of occurrence. Every offence committed shall bear a consecutive number in order of date of occurrence. 304- To enable the Superintendent of the Circle Jail to have the record kept complete and up to date, the Superintendent of every District Jail shall send to him every month a return (No. 28) giving all necessary details for the preceding month, in respect both of his own jail and of the Subsidiary Jails of his district, of departure on or arrival from, leave, transfers from or to the jail or subsidiary jail, deaths, suspensions, dismissals, abscondence, offences and punishments, with the date of every occurrence. 305- The Superintendent of the Circle Jail shall publish on the 1st of July of each year a "Circle List" containing the names, "Circle numbers" and other particulars of every Head Warder and warder of the circle arranged in order of seniority. Superintendents should scrutinise this list with respect to the warder establishment of their jails and affiliated subsidiary jails, and should draw the attention of the Superintendent of the Central Jails to any inaccuracy that may be discovered. Two copies of this list shall be sent to the Inspector-General." 10. It is submitted by Mr. Maitra that the Respondents have not specifically denied that writ petitioners were all appointed by the Superintendent of Dum Dum Central Jail. He also submits that as appointing authority he has definite powers to transfer any warder or Held Warder from District Jail or Sub-Jail to any other District Jail or within the circle. But as their seniority list is maintained by the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Jail then in the absence of any prospective provision in the Jail Code as to what would happen if a warder or Head Warder is transferred from one circle to another and how such inter-se seniority as is to be maintained even after their transfer from the circle whose jail Superintendent has appointed him and what consequence such provisions would have to the seniority list-maintained by the warders and Head Warders of the circle in which they are transferred by the Inspector-General of prisons then such transfer of a jail warder or head warder, ward officers the prospect of promotion not only of the incumbent but also of the existing warders and Head warders of that circle. 11. 11. It is also submitted that a bare statement in the affidavit-in-opposition that the inter-se seniority of the petitioners will be protected even after their transfer from the circle is a bare statement of the Respondents and the Court cannot ace upon it when the Jail Code does not provide for any such protection. 12. The Respondents have drawn my attention to Rule 166 of the Jail Code and submitted that under Rule 166 of the Jail Code the candidates appointed to Jail service must understand that be can be transferred any where it seems fit for the Inspector General of Police My attention has also been drawn to Rule 294 where it has been laid down that the control of the establishment of the Jail within a circle shall be vested with the Superintendent of the circle jail subject to supervision of the Inspector General of prisons. 13. It is, therefore, submitted that Rule 166 gives power to the Inspector General of Prisons to transfer any member of the Jail service any where in West Bengal. 14. I have carefully considered the provisions of Rules 166 and 294 of the Jail Code 294 vests the administration of the Jail with the Superintendent of the Circle subject to the general Supervision of Inspector-General of Prisons. The clear perusal of 303, 304 and 305 of the Jail Code clearly show that in respect of the chief head warder and warder of the circle service register has to be maintained at the circle by the jail Superintendent of the circle. He has to prepare such register with the help of Superintendent of every district jail, and also of the subsidiary jails. The Superintendent of the circle jail shall also publish on the 1st July of each year a "Circle List" containing the names, of the "Circle numbers" and other particulars of every Head Warder and Warder of the circle arranged is order of seniority. There is also no doubt that when a promotion is to be given from a Warder to Head Warder and Head Warder to Chief Head Warder the circle list maintained by the Superintendent of the circle shall be the only document to determine the seniority of the members to be eligible for such promotion. There is also no doubt that when a promotion is to be given from a Warder to Head Warder and Head Warder to Chief Head Warder the circle list maintained by the Superintendent of the circle shall be the only document to determine the seniority of the members to be eligible for such promotion. On behalf of the Respondent the learned Advocate has not been able to dispute that the "Circle List" of the Head Warder and the Warder in order of seniority is maintained in the circle. It is true that Rule 166 has bestowed power upon I.G. of Prisons to transfer any member of jail service anywhere within West Bengal that power has been vested with the I.G. of prisons in respect of all employees employed in different jails within the State of West Bengal no doubt but it is to be seen as to whether the I.G. of Prisons would exercise such power in the case of Head Warder and Weirder when their seniority list known as "Circle List" is maintained in the circle where they have been appointed. I have already indicated that the Respondents do not dispute that the Warder are appointed by the Superintendent of the jail of the circle. There is no specific provisions of the jail code as to how the "Circle List" of the circle would be amended when a Head Warder or Warder of a particular circle is transferred to any other circle. There is every possibility of a Head Warder or a Warder being adversely effected if they are transferred to a different circle and is placed at the bottom of list maintained at the circle. Even if by any administrative order of the I.G. of Prisons and attempt is made to place them at a particular position in the "Circle List" of the circle in which he has transferred then the Head Warden and Warders of that circle may also be affected by such order. Even if by any administrative order of the I.G. of Prisons and attempt is made to place them at a particular position in the "Circle List" of the circle in which he has transferred then the Head Warden and Warders of that circle may also be affected by such order. Until and unless by virtue of a statutory provision it is provided as to how the seniority of a Warder or a Head Warder from a particular circle transferred to another circle will be determined on their transfer, then regard being had to the existing provision of the Jail code this is bound to create adverse civil consequences both to the Warden or, Head Warders transferred from one circle to another and also to the Head Warders and Warders where those incumbents are transferred. It is only when a statutory provision in made to that effect then every Warder or Head Warder working in any circle will be bound by such statutory provision. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that never before a Warder or Head Warder of a circle has been transferred from one circle to another and they were all along transferred from one district jail or sub-jail to another within the circle. In the affidavit-in-opposition the Respondents have not been able to categorically refute, that fact and to state that in the past also I.G. of Prisons exercised his powers contained in Rule 166 of the jail code by transferring Warders or Head Warders from one circle to another even though I am of the view that such power is definitely there in Rule 166 but in the absence the specific provisions in the jail code as regards the maintenance of inter-se seniority of such transferred Warders or Head Warders in the jail code such exercise of power will entail adverse civil consequences and constitute a penal transfer; Mr. Maitra has drawn my attention to the Supreme Court decision reported in (1) AIR 1985 SC 482 , Arun Kumar Chatterjee v. S.E. Railway where it is observed by Supreme Court that loss of seniority of a Government servant with consequent loss of promotional prospects and higher pay and emolument is a matter of serious consequence to him. Maitra has drawn my attention to the Supreme Court decision reported in (1) AIR 1985 SC 482 , Arun Kumar Chatterjee v. S.E. Railway where it is observed by Supreme Court that loss of seniority of a Government servant with consequent loss of promotional prospects and higher pay and emolument is a matter of serious consequence to him. Therefore, if I.G. of Prisons by virtue of power confirmed in Rule 166 transfers Warders or Head Warders from one circle to another it will definitely cause the adverse civil consequences and might affect prejudicially the inter-se seniority and promotional prospect. I am clearly of the view that just a bald statement in the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by the Superintendent of Dum Dum Jail that inter-se seniority will be maintained, cannot be treated by this Court as a definite safeguard for the petitioners whose inter-se seniority and promotional prospects are going to be adversely affected by the impugned orders of transfer. There is no doubt that when any order of the Government prejudicially affects or curtails existing right and privileges the rules of natural justice are violated. There are several decisions of the Supreme Court on this point and one such decision namely (2) AIR 1989 SC 568 H.L. Tresion v. Union of India, may be referred to. Therefore, even if I am of the view that regard being had to Rule 166 of the Jail Code any member of jail service may be transferred anywhere within the State of West Bengal by I.G. of Prisons but in the case of Warders and Head Warders without making a clear provision as regards the inter-se seniority on such transfer being made by the Government by making any suitable provision in the jail code the impugned transfer orders may adversely affect the petitioners and they can be treated as penal transfers. Even if for administrative reason the transfer of the petitioners from one jail to another within the circle is necessary. The I.G. of Prisons or the Superintendent of the circle may transfer each of them to any other jail or sub-jail within the circle but when the impugned transfers are bound to affect adversely against the petitioners, the above transfer orders cannot stand and must be quashed. The I.G. of Prisons or the Superintendent of the circle may transfer each of them to any other jail or sub-jail within the circle but when the impugned transfers are bound to affect adversely against the petitioners, the above transfer orders cannot stand and must be quashed. The Supreme Court has clearly held that State is to act as a model employer and therefore, the State Authority should not exercising his power, when by exercising such power the persons affected are going to suffer evil civil consequences. 15. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer orders and the release orders already made be hereby quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to be continuing in their respective posts irrespective of the fact that they have been released from those posts and shall be permitted by the Respondents to continue in their respective posts until a valid order of transfer is made as indicated in the above. 16. Respondents are given liberty to issue fresh transfer orders against the writ petitioner at any jail within the circle. There is no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of that order be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner upon usual undertaking.