Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 999 (PAT)

Mr. Diwakar Jha With Bindeshwar Singh v. State

2004-09-20

V.N.SINHA

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. In both these writ applications which are being disposed of by a common order the petitioners who are posted as typist in the office of District Welfare Officer, Madhu-bani, and clerk in the office of Deputy Director Welfare, Munger, have challenged, the chain transfer order bearing memo No. 3131 dated 30.6.2004 whereunder the Director, Welfare, Govt, of Bihar, Patna, respondent No. 3, transferred them to another division. 3. Grievance of the two petitioners is that their cadre is divisional and, as such, they should not to have been transferred to another division. In this connection, they referred to the office order bearing No. 264 dated 15.1.1992 passed by the then Director, Welfare, annexure-2 in C.W.J.C. No. 10240/2004 and the order dated 22.8.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6880 of 1994 by a Division Bench of this court, as contained in annexure 2 to this application. They further referred to another order of this court dated 3.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8008 of 2004, as contained in annexure 3, whereunder the impugned order dated 30.6.2004 itself was stayed so far the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 8008/2004 were concerned, whereafter the Director Welfare himself passed another order bearing memo No. 3670 dated 3.7.2004, as contained in annexure 3A and thereby stayed their transfer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case also this court should intervene and pass similar stay order. 5. At this juncture, I am not inclined to do so, as perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 30.6.2004 indicates that in paragraph 3 thereof it was clearly stipulated that the persons affected by that order shall automatically be relieved by 31.7.2004. The two writ applications have been filed on 27.8.2004 & 30.8.2004 before which the two writ petitioners stood already relieved, in terms of paragraph 3 of the impugned order as such, I am not inclined to pass any Stay/Status Quo Order in favour of the petitioners. The two writ applications have been filed on 27.8.2004 & 30.8.2004 before which the two writ petitioners stood already relieved, in terms of paragraph 3 of the impugned order as such, I am not inclined to pass any Stay/Status Quo Order in favour of the petitioners. They Should approach the Director and file a detailed representation against the impugned transfer order raising all the grounds which they have raised in the said two writ applications and the Director thereafter should pass a reasoned order, in the light of the order of his predecessor bearing memo No. 246 dated 15.1.1992, as contained in annexure 2 in the former case and the order of Division Bench of this court dated 22.8.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6880/1994, as contained in annexure 2 of C.W.J.C. No. 10337 of 2004. The petitioners should file their representations within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Director should thereafter dispose of the representation within another two weeks by a reasoned order. 6. This disposes of this application. No cost.