Satyendra Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.1 to 7 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr.SC-I For the Resp. Nos. 8 to 11 : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate

¶19

¶20

16/ 14.05.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the order No. 10214 dated 16.10.2008 issued by Deputy Secretary, Department of Home (Special), Govt. of Bihar, Patna, as far it relates to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been allocated the cadre of State of Bihar on mutual transfer of cadre, though the said consent was thereafter withdrawn by the petitioner due to changes in Rules regarding seniority of employees opting for mutual transfer.

¶22

Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner working as Sub-Inspector of Police in the district of Chatra (Jharkhand) applied for mutual transfer of cadre allocation to the State of Bihar on 5.1.2005 with one Beyas Ram, who was posted in Sitamarhi (Bihar) as Sub-Inspector of Police. However, due to changes in the Rules regarding seniority in the mutual transfer of cadre, the petitioner withdrawn his earlier application of mutual transfer by his application dated 10.08.2007 to the respondent-State of Bihar.

¶23

1

¶24

Learned counsel submits that despite withdrawal of application for transfer on mutual consent, the impugned order dated 16.10.2008 was issued allocating the petitioner to the cadre of State of Bihar. Learned counsel further submits that considering these facts, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order was stayed, till the next date of hearing. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the petitioner continued in the State of Jharkhand and as on date, he got promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he is posted in the district of Deoghar and he is not interested for cadre division or his transfer to the State of Bihar. Learned counsel also submits that even the person, on whose consent, the petitioner sought mutual transfer, has already been retired and as such, the instant writ petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel further submits that even the State of Jharkhand has not passed any final order as to whether the petitioner is continuing in the State of Jharkhand or in view of the order passed by the State of Bihar, he may be transferred to the State of Bihar.

¶25

Mr. Ranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand submits that as the order was already stayed by this Court, there was no option other than to allow the petitioner to continue in the State of Jharkhand. However, he fairly submits that if a direction be given to the respondent-State of Jharkhand, final order shall be passed.

¶26

Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar submits that when the cadre transfer has already been given effect to, the same cannot be questioned or cancelled unilaterally. Referring to the paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit, he submits that even the transfer order was stayed till the next date of hearing, it was binding on the petitioner to move an application before the respondent for passing a final order.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that admittedly the petitioner had opted for cadre transfer on mutual consent. However, subsequently the petitioner withdrew his consent for transfer, but the order of cadre division has been passed by the State of Bihar. The issue was subject matter of challenge before this Court and vide order dated 3.7.2009, the operation, implementation and execution of

¶28

2

¶29

the order passed by the respondent-State of Bihar dated 16.10.2008 was stayed. The petitioner thereafter continued in the State of Jharkhand. It has also been brought on record that the person working in the State of Bihar who had earlier given his consent also continued in the State of Bihar and subsequently superannuated. The petitioner continued in the State of Jharkhand in view of the stay order and almost 15 years have passed since then. The respondent State of Jharkhand has also not bothered to pass any final order. The petitioner is continuing in the State of Jharkhand and he is at the verge of retirement and he has already been considered for promotion.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid facts, as also in view of the fact that the petitioner has already represented before the respondent State of Bihar and the same was rejected, I hereby direct the respondent-State of Jharkhand to take decision on the pending representation of the petitioner considering the fact that the petitioner has continued for more than 15 years in the State of Jharkhand and the person who had to come in the State of Jharkhand had already superannuated. Since the petitioner has already continued for more than fifteen years and the cadre division was not given effect to, in view of stay order passed by this Court, the respondent State of Jharkhand is directed to pass a final order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)

¶33

R.Kr.

¶34

3

Satyendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Ekka Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Secretary Department of Revenue

Bindu Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Education and Literacy

Gaurav Gyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Kabirul Islam Vs the State of Jharkhand Thro the Principal Secretary School Education and Literacy Department

Navin Kumar Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pallawi Dixit Vs the State of Jharkhand