CHANDRAMOULI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 27th August, 2013 issued under the Signature of the Respondent No. 2 - The Engineer -in -Chief -cum -Additional Commissioner -cum -Special Secretary, Department of Rural Works, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 2119 dated 27 August, 2013 (Annexure -3), whereby he has been transferred from his present place of posting at Works Section, Masalia Works Division, Dumka and posted in Works Section, Chakulia, Works Division, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum. By the same notification, the private respondent (Respondent No. 4) has been posted in his place.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he had submitted his joining at the present place of posting at Dumka pursuant to the office order contained in Memo. No. 137 dated 15 December, 2012 (Annexure -1). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the normal tenure of posting of any such Government employee under the policy of the State Government is three years. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been taken aback by the impugned notification issued only after eight months of his joining at the present place of posting. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned notification of transfer has been issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Hon'ble Minister of Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, as would appear from Annexure -2 dated 26 August, 2013. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the private respondent has been posted in the same works division, Dumka for the last seven years and he was relieved to join at Works Section, Chakulia by office order No. 137 dated 15 December, 2012. It is submitted that after having remained at the same place for seven years and after being relieved in December to join at Chakulia in January 2013, he has once again been posted at the same place by the same notification i.e. at the Works Section, Masalia Works Division, Dumka. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notification has been issued without the normal process of recommendation of the Establishment Committee which is mandatory as per the notification of 25th October, 1980 (Annexure -4). It is further submitted that no administrative grounds are also made out for such transfer. Learned Senior Counsel also submits by drawing attention of this Court to Annexure -A to the counter affidavit dated 6th September, 2013 that the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Dumka has been asked to explain by the Engineer -in -Chief -Additional Commissioner -cum -Special Secretary, Rural Works Department as to the circumstances in which the private respondent who was posted at Chakulia, has been permitted to join on the same day of the notification i.e. 27 August, 2013, though two places are separated by a large distance of more than 200 km. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that the impugned notification is bad in law and required to be interfered by this Court in writ jurisdiction.

(3.) IT is worthwhile to point out that the relevant records relating to issuance of the impugned notification were summoned by this Court on the last date and is in the custody of the learned State Counsel. The aforesaid fact that no Establishment Committee meeting was held for recommending such transfer in August 2013, is not in dispute.