Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 256 (PAT)

Ram Naresh Singh, Vaishali v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-03

KISHORE K.MANDAL, S.K.KATRIAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT S.K.Katriar and Kishore Kumar Mandal JJ. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 564(4), dated, 17th June, 2005 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner has been reverted to his substantive post of Basic Health Worker. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The Petitioner was earlier posted as a Basic Health Worker. He submitted his representation which was allowed, and he was transferred to the cadre of Clerks, Vide Order bearing Memo No. 34 dated, 30th December, 1991 (Annexure-4). Identical orders were passed with respect to some other persons also. The authorities in due course realised that the Petitioner and others had been transferred to an altogether different cadre on their request which was unauthorised and illegal. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 issued Show Cause Notice bearing Memo No. 2158, dated, 15th October,, 1996 (Annexure-5), to the Petitioner and six others calling them upon to show cause as to why they be not reverted to their substantive posts. This was followed by a further show cause notices dated, 12th January, 2000 (Annexure-6), 6th November, 2004 (Annexure-7), and 22na March, 2005 (Annexure-7/1).The Petitioner ultimately had shown cause by his communication dated, 12th May, 2005 (Annexure-7/2), which was rejected by the impugned order, whereby the Petitioner has been reverted to the post of Basic Health Worker. Hence, this writ petition. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner worked as a Clerk for 14 years. The Respondent authorities cannot, therefore, at this belated stage be permitted to unsettle a settled affair. He next submits that he will superannuate in the year 2011. 4. Learned Government Pleader has taken us through various orders of this Court in an effort to satisfy us that identical orders with respect to similarly circumstanced persons have been upheld. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the Respondent authorities had made the initial mistake of transferring the Petitioner to a cadre to which he could not have been transferred. They realised the matter, and then issued Show Cause Notices to the Petitioner as to why the order of transfer be not cancelled. It appears to us on a perusal of the materials on record that the Respondent authorities had made the initial mistake of transferring the Petitioner to a cadre to which he could not have been transferred. They realised the matter, and then issued Show Cause Notices to the Petitioner as to why the order of transfer be not cancelled. It took the authorities to issue four Show Cause Notices, and it took the Petitioner 9 years to submit his cause. We entirely agree with the decision of the authorities that the Petitioner could not have been transferred to a different cadre. The requirements of the two cadres are quite different, and it is normally not permissible for the State Government to transfer the Petitioner to a different cadre altogether. 6. The second aspect of the matter is that identical orders with respect to similarly circumstanced persons have been upheld by Single Judges, and a Division Bench of this Court. The Respondent authorities have annexed to the counter-affidavit, a copy of the order dated, 7th July, 2005 (Annexure-B), passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in L.P.A. No. 448 of 2005 (Arvind Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), and the analogous appeals. All the appeals at the instance of the employees were dismissed by a common order, and the order of reversion has been affirmed. It is further evident from the order of the Division Bench that the order of the authorities to recover the excess amount paid on the promoted post to those Appellants was upheld. We entirely agree with the same. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.