JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Orissa, Bhubaneswar opposite party No. 1 by order dated 3-4-1999 in Dispute Case No. 164 of 1998 at Annexure-9 having rejected the claim for payment of salary from January, 1999 onwards, the Petitioner being felt aggrieved by it has filed this petition. 2. Briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that while serving as the branch. Manager-II (0) in the Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Head Office, Tinkonia Bagicha; he was transferred to Jagatsinghpur Branch office by Office Order dated 29-6-1998 at Annexure-l. As the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent-authority he challenged it in filing Dispute Case No. 164 of 1998 before the Registrar who by order dated 21-8-1998 while admitting the dispute case stayed operation of the order of transfer until further orders. Ultimately by order dated 9-10-1998 at Annexure-2, the Registrar allowed the dispute case holding that the order of transfer being defective is not enforceable. The Bank, however, "created" a relieve order dated 1-7-1998 at Annexure-3. The Bank filed,T.A. 39 of 1998 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar against the order dated 9-10-1998 of the Registrar. The Tribunal by judgment dated 4-12-1998 set aside.the order of the Registrar dated 9-10-1998 and remanded the matter to him for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in this Court by filing writ petition bearing O.J. C. No. 1740 of 1998. This Court by order dated 7-12-1998 declined to entertain the writ petition since the matter had gone on remand. It was, however, observed that the Registrar would consider the prayer of the Petitioner for release of his salary. The Registrar by order dated 1l-12-1998 at Annexure-6 directed the Bank to release the salary of the Petitioner pending' disposal of the dispute case on merit. The Bank challenged the aforesaid order dated 11-12-1998 of the Registrar by filing I writ petition, i. e., O.J. C. No. 17747 of 1998. By order dated 14-1-1998 the writ petition was disposed of by noting the contentoin of the Bank that the Petitioner having not worked was not entitled to any salary. The finding recorded by the Registrar regarding the period of service rendered by him was thus kept open. By order dated 14-1-1998 the writ petition was disposed of by noting the contentoin of the Bank that the Petitioner having not worked was not entitled to any salary. The finding recorded by the Registrar regarding the period of service rendered by him was thus kept open. The Bank was, however, directed to pay the salary to the Petitioner for the period as directed by the Registrar without prejudice and subject to the rights and contentions of the parties to be decided by the Registrar while adjudicating the dispute case. The Bank without paying uptodate salary to the Petitioner paid the salary only for the period from July, 1998 to December, 1998. This compelled the Petitioner to file a petition dated 27-2-1999 before the Registrar for a direction to the Bank release his salary from January, 1999 onwards. The Bank filed its objection dated 6-3-1999. On 20-2-1999 draft issues were filed and the main Dispute Case was to be heard. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the Registrar illegally by order dated 3-4-1999 at Annexure-9 by recording contradictory finding declined to direct the Bank to release his salary from January, 1999 onwards. 3. Opposite parties 2 to 4 have filed the counter affidavit. Their case is that following the transfer of the Petitioner to Jagatsinghpur he was relieved of his duties by order dated 3-7-1998 at Annexure-A which was received by him on 30-7-1998. The Petitioner initially filed Dispute Case No. 66 of 1998 before the Co-operative Tribunal challenging the order of transfer which was dismissed by order dated 19-8-1998 on contest as not maintainable. There after the Petitioner filed Dispute Case No. 164 of 1998 before the Registrar who passed an ex parte order of stay on 21-8-1998. On 31-8-1998 the Bank filed a petition for vacating the order of stay. The Registrar heard the matter and the order was reserved on 10-9-1998. By order dated 9-10-1998 the Registrar allowed the Dispute Case while hearing was only made on the petition for vacating the stay. After tracing out the history of litigation the opposite pannes have averred in their counter affidavit that the Petitioner having" been relieved on 10-7-1998 and having not joined in his; new station of posting is not entitled to receive any salary. 4. After tracing out the history of litigation the opposite pannes have averred in their counter affidavit that the Petitioner having" been relieved on 10-7-1998 and having not joined in his; new station of posting is not entitled to receive any salary. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the different orders passed' by this Court as well as the orders passed by the Registrar, we are of the opinion that the claim of the Petitioner that he is entitled to receive the salary from January 1999 onwards would depend upon the final order to be passed by the Registrar in Dispute Case No. 164 of 1998 which as stated at the bar is fixed to 31-7-1999 for hearing. The specific case of the Petitioner is that the Chairman of the Bank is not competent to pass the order of transfer. The Registrar will consider the validity of the order of transfer as well as the effect of order of relief dated 1-7-1998. The Registrar will dispose" of the matter on merit without being influenced by any observation made in any of the order passed previously in connection with the Dispute Case. 5. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of. B.P. Das. J. 6. I agree. Writ petition disposed of.