JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J.: By filing the writ appeal the petitioner has sought for the following relief : “that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash order of transfer dated 22.07.2014 under Annexure-4 and the consequential order dated 23.07.2014 under Annexure-5 in order to enable the petitioner to continue in MCL, Head Quarter at Burla till his retirement on superannuation.” 2. The case of the petitioner as narrated from the writ petition and submitted during the course of argument, is that the petitioner was an ex-army personnel. He joined as security officer in the Coal India Limited in the grade of officer E/2 on 19 3 1986 For his successful career after bringing him to several posts, he was lastly promoted from Senior Manager (Security) grade E/6 to Chief Manager (Security) in grade E/7. On his such promotion, he was posted in MCL Jagannath area vide order dated 3.5.2012 as appearing at Annexure-1. Further case of the petiti0ner is that while the petitioner weas so continuing and discharging his duties as Chief Manager (Security) in Jagannath Area of MCL, he was transferred to MCL headquarter at Burla vide office order dated 31.8.2013. Following the above transfer order, he was relieved by office order no. 7229 dated 1.9.2013, petitioner joined on the same day in the headquarter at Burla in the post of Chief Manager (Security) E/7 grade. Petitioner alleges that while he was continuing as such, he was served with office order No. 208 dated 22.7.2014 by which the petitioner has been once again transferred to another subsidiary company of the Coal India Ltd., i.e., Central Coalfields Ltd., headquarters at Ranchi. He further alleges that even though copy of such transfer order has not been served on the petitioner, he was relieved by opposite party no.4 by office order No. 2859 dated 23.7.2014 with further advise to the petitioner to report for duty before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL. Through the same order, the petitioner was directed to hand over the charges to one Shri B.K. Singh, MCL headquarter. Petitioner submitted that he has not handed over any charge and further Shri B.K. Singh is an officer of E/5 grade, two stages below the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 22.7.2014 and his relieve order dated 23.7.2014 in filing the present writ. Petitioner submitted that he has not handed over any charge and further Shri B.K. Singh is an officer of E/5 grade, two stages below the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 22.7.2014 and his relieve order dated 23.7.2014 in filing the present writ. The petitioner submitted that the action of the management is not only in colourable exercise of power but also is in violation of the transfer policy of the Coal India Ltd. To substantiate his allegation, the petitioner referred to a circular/transfer policy which specifically stipulates that no employee either in the executive or in the non-executive, can be transferred if he has less than two years for superannuation. Since the petitioner is to retire in the month of July, 2015, he is well covered by the above circular/transfer policy. The petitioner further alleged that the transfer order at such fag end of his career, also puts him into harassment. Further second transfer even within a short span of time for no valid reason, is also bad in the eye of law. He also attack the transfer order on the plea that since there exist vacancy in E/7 grade, his transfer also suffers for the reason that on his previous transfer, he has been very recently provided with a quarter at Burla and he has shifted his assets and belongings to the said quarter hardly two months back. He further alleged that his such transfer order is motivated and stage managed, only to accommodate the junior staff posted against such high place. 3. Per contra, the opposite parties by filing a common counter, while denying the allegations and accusations made against the opposite parties, submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from MCL Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. to Central Coalfields Ltd. in his existing capacity and he has been relieved in the meanwhile. The transfer has been effected as per CCL transfer order dated 22.7.2014. Considering the requirement of an executive in security discipline in CCL, the transfer has been effected after discussing with the Director (P & IR CCL) who has agreed for such transfer of the petitioner from MCL to CCL taking into consideration the transfer policy of the Company. The proposal for transfer of the petitioner was approved keeping in view the administrative exigencies as such claimed that there has been no illegality in the transfer of the petitioner. The proposal for transfer of the petitioner was approved keeping in view the administrative exigencies as such claimed that there has been no illegality in the transfer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite party during the course of argument, supported the stand of the opposite parties on the basis of the stand taken in the counter, particularly advancing an argument that the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative exigencies hence, should not be interfered with by a writ court. Further since the petitioner has accepted appointment of the employer with the terms and conditions for being transferred, he should not hesitate on his transfer. The petitioner by filing a rejoinder affidavit, while reiterating his submission in the writ petition, has submitted that his transfer is not on account of any administrative exigency as there is no such indication in the transfer order vide Annxure-4. While referring some of the judgments of the apex Court, the petitioner has also claimed the order of transfer as illegal. During the course of hearing, petitioner as well as opposite parties have referred to circulars of transfer vide Annexure-6 and Annexure-G respectively, relevant portion of which, are reproduced as herein below : “Annexure-6 Coal India Limited. No.CIL/C5A(vi/50729/CCC)/1111 Dated 07/09.01.2009 OFFICE MEMORANDUM (I) Executives on promotion from E5 to M1 grade(except those posted in CMPDIL, IICM and Coal Videsh) and from non-executive to executive cadre except in Survey Discipline will be transferred out of the Company. However, such executives in E5 grade who have spent less than one year at the existing company and get promoted to M1 grade will be exempted from transfer. Those having less than two years of service will also be excluded from this provision. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Sd/-H.Kujur. General Manager(Pers.)” “Annexure-H COAL INDIA LIMITED COAL BHAWAN 10 N S ROAD, CALCUTTA-700 001 No.CIL/C-5A(vi)/50729/CCC/26 Dated April 26, 2002 OFFICE MEMORANDUM In pursuance of the decision of the Board of Directors of Coal India Limited in its 195th meeting held on 30th April, 2001 at Kolkata, the ‘Transfer Policy’ in respect of Executives under Common Coal Cadre and in respect of Executives & Non-executives working in sensitive disciplines are hereby ammended as under : GENERAL 1) Transfers should normally be programmed during the beginning and end of the academic year. 2) Executives who have less than 02 years service left are not to be transferred normally. They may be given a posting of their choice if vacancy is available, keeping in mind the administrative requirement. 3) Transfer of executives posted in projects are to be covered by the Government guidelines on the subject. 4) Transfer & posting of executives trained specially should be in line with their specialisation. 5) Large scale transfer is to be avoided, but at least 10% of the executives satisfying the criteria laid down hereunder be transferred each year. 6) Transfer on ‘Administrative Ground’ may be effected at any tie. 7) Executives of M1 grade and above who have been working in the same company for more than 10(ten) years either in the same capacity or in different capacities, be transferred to another company. 8) Officer transferred from one company to another will not be transferred to the company in which he was earlier posted before expiry of 03 (three) years period. Sd/-BN JHA (CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER(PERSONNEL)” From perusal of the above two circulars, the circular which was issued on 26.4.2012, at condition no.2 under the heading of general, makes it clear that the executives who has less than 02 number of years of service, not to be transferred normally. They may be given a posting of their choice if vacancy is available keeping in mind the administrative requirement. Similarly, the office memorandum of 7/9 Jan, 2009 brings out an amendment to the transfer policy dated 26.4.2001 referred to herein above. Vide clause (i) of this memorandum, while modifying the previous transfer policy, the provision in the previous transfer policy for not transferring the officers having less than two years of service, has been maintained. Therefore, there is no doubt that the opposite parties are following a transfer policy protecting the executives/officers who has less than two years of service left from the purview of transfer. The provisions in the said regard, is sustained. During the course of hearing, I had called upon learned counsel for opposite parties for producing the file in connection with transfer of the petitioner for perusal of this Court. Consequent upon direction to Mr. S.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties, file containing the decision of transfer of the petitioner is also produced before me. During the course of hearing, I had called upon learned counsel for opposite parties for producing the file in connection with transfer of the petitioner for perusal of this Court. Consequent upon direction to Mr. S.D. Das, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties, file containing the decision of transfer of the petitioner is also produced before me. I have gone through the said file and in the entire file, I find a single document dated 22.7.2014, the proposal in the matter of transfer of the petitioner submitted to the higher authority for their approval. The proposal has taken note of the fact that there is a relaxation for transfer to the executives who has less than two years of service. Though, the proposal was made keeping in view the administrative exigencies but the document seeking proposal and the approval thereupon, no where indicates or discusses the reason for such administrative exigencies except use of word ‘administrative exigency’ in the proposal. The mandate of law as decided in a catena of decisions right from Privy Council. “It is well settled principle of law laid down by the Privy Council in Nair Ahmad v. King Emperor, 1936 PC 253 and subsequently followed by the apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagdish Lal and another, AIR 1970 SC 7 ; Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs V. Govind Joti Chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 and Babu Verghese and others v. Bar Council of Kerala and others, AIR 1999 SC 1281 and various Courts that if the statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same should be done in the same manner or not at all.” The circulars/office memorandum referred to herein above, are issued by none else than the employer, has a binding fierce on the employer as well as the employee. The case at hand involves a case of transfer of a person having less than two years to serve and is well protected under the above memorandum/circulars. Being conscious of the issue of transfer of a person having less than two years and the protection granted to such person vide above two circulars, it is desired that the higher authorities while considering transfers of a person in the particular agency should have applied their mind and deliberated on the issue and further approved the transfer on assigning reasons. In view of the settled principle of law as narrated herein above and under the findings arrived at by me herein above, I find the impugned order of transfer vide Annexure-4 suffers from being based on no consideration of the higher authority deliberating the particular issue and having not assigning any reason thereof during approval. The proposal though highlighted such a situation but same has not been considered at all. Consequently the order relieving the petitioner vide Annexure-5 is also bad in law, which, I set aside accordingly. Further on perusal of the order dated 25.7.2014, this Court while issuing notice, also directed the learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties to justify his argument with regard to what exigencies have been prevailed in the mind of the authorities to transfer the petitioner who is to retire within one year and at the same time, this Court also by the very same order, as an interim measure, permitted the petitioner not to hand over charge pursuant to orders of transfer if he has not handed over the charge in the meanwhile which order was allowed to continue by further orders in same matter. In the meanwhile, about six weeks have been passed from the date of interim order, the opposite parties could neither be able to establish the exigencies nor could bring to establish that they have suffered in any manner any material before this Court for non-implementation of the transfer order. In the above premises, while setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures 4 & 5, I direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue in his former post with the release of all consequential benefits. The writ petition succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to cost.