MAHESH PRASAD LUNKESH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/petitioner was appointed in the Administrative Department of Road Construction Department of the Government of Jharkhand and his services was placed under the Rural Works Department by order dated 28.2.2009. He was posted in various departments and now, on 6.7.2011 the petitioner was working at Madhupur in the District of Deoghar in Rural Works Department. He submitted a complaint against one contractor before the Executive Engineer on 21.11.2011 and being annoyed by that complaint, the Executive Engineer, who is not the competent authority, passed an antedated order dated 12.11.2011 by which all the powers of the writ petitioner was seized. The petitioner then raised objection and submitted protest to the higher authority which have been placed in the writ petition by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that because of lodging of this complaint, firstly, against the contractor on 21.11.2011 and then, against the Executive Engineer on 25.11.2011, he has been transferred to his parent department vide order dated 26.12.2011 which order was passed by Engineer -in -Chief -cum - Additional Commissioner -cum -Special Secretary. The petitioner challenged that order of transfer by placing all facts on record by filing the writ petition No. W.P.(S) No. 40 of 2012 which has been dismissed even without calling upon the respondent to file the counter affidavit. The petitioner's contention is that he was posted on that post only on 6.7.2011 and has been transferred in a very short period within a period of less than six months vide order dated 26.12.2011, which is also contrary to the policy decision of the department itself as it amounts to premature transfer of the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that some of the persons working in the department since last 25 years are not being disturbed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant/petitioner further submitted that one of the employees, who has been transferred by the same order, has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 119 of 2011 before this Court wherein interim order was passed. It is submitted that in view of the above reasons, learned Single Judge should not have dismissed the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner and parity should have been maintained.

(3.) AT this juncture, we may also observe that the petitioner's contention is that one other person preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 119 of 2011 and his writ petition has been entertained, such cannot be a ground because of the simple reason that the service of each individual has its own individual facts and is required to be examined by the facts of each case. The petitioner's case is not admittedly based on the facts of that writ petitioner whose writ petition has been entertained and to make it clear, it is not the case of that petitioner that another writ petitioner also lodged a case in the same manner and same fashion against one contractor resulting into the complaint against one Executive Engineer. Therefore, on this plea also, petitioner cannot claim any benefit.