Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 863 (PAT)

Ramautar Sah v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-21

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 18th June, 1992 as contained in annexure-1 whereby and whereunder respondent no. 3 has been appointed on the post of Accountant. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner belongs to the State cadre an8 he was posted as Accountant under the Director of State Sainik Welfare Directorate, whereas respondent no. 3 was Class III employee of the District cadre, but the authorities transferred respondent no. 3 over the head of the petitioner in the Headquarter, ignoring all the settled norms. It is further submitted that the pay structure of Class III employees attached to the Secretariat are completely different from those of Class III employees of Mufassil offices. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the transfer of respondent no. 3 from Mufassil offices to the Headquarters is wholly impermissible in law. Learned counsel further contended that on earlier occasion the petitioner was transferred to Mufassil offices. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of transfer came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1658 of 1991. During the pendency of the writ application aforesaid respondent no. 2, Director, State Sinik Welfare Directorate came out with an order as contained in annexure-1 posting respondent no. 3 on higher post of Accountant and the petitioner was transferred in the Secretariat cadre below respondent no. 3 and in that view of the matter, the petitioner withdrew his earlier writ application vide order as contained in annexure-12. 4. Though, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, no plausible explanation has been given as to under what circumstances respondent no. 3 was brought from Mufassil offices to the Headquarters and was posted over the head of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner by way of a supplementary affidavit has brought certain materials on record showing instances that in the past also some of the persons were transferred from Mufassil offices to the Headquarters but the authorities realising their mistakes cancelled the order of transfer of such persons to the Headquarters and they were sent back to Mufassil offices. Such orders have been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioner was posted as Accountant in the State Headquarters in the Directorate of State Sainik Welfare, whereas respondent no. Such orders have been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioner was posted as Accountant in the State Headquarters in the Directorate of State Sainik Welfare, whereas respondent no. 3 is Class III employee of Mufassil offices, i.e., of the district cadre. It further appears that in normal course respondent no. 3 could not have been transferred to the Headquarters and that also over the head of the petitioner. 7. The change of cadre normally is not permissible in law and no plausible explanation whatsoever has been given in the counter affidavit as to under what circumstances the cadre of respondent no. 3 was changed. This is also not the case of the respondents that respondent no. 3 was transferred from Mufassil offices to the Headquarters after losing his seniority. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as referred to above, the order impugned as contained in annexure-1, is not sustainable in law. 9. In the result, this writ application is allowed. The order impugned as contained in annexure-1 is set aside. No costs.