The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Bindeshswari Prasad Singh and anr.

The State of Bihar and ors. vs Bindeshswari Prasad Singh and anr.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Patna Decided Oct 18, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/132409

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/132409
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Barin Ghosh and A.K. Tripathy, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 18, 2006
Case Number: L.P.A. No. 1120 of 1997
Subject: ;Service
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: ;Service
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The State of Bihar and ors.

Advocate Ram Bilash Mahto, A.A.G.8

Respondent

Bindeshswari Prasad Singh and anr.

Advocate None

Excerpt

- .....transfer order transferring him to rohtas was issued by inadvertance, which was sought to be rectified by the transfer order, as was impugned in the writ petition.2. the learned single judge in that background held that there was no just reason to transfer the writ petitioner within two months from the date of his transfer to a particular place. the learned single judge pointed out that the rohtas was the home district of the writ petitioner was known to the transferring authority at the time of transferring the petitioner to rohtas and accordingly, the same was not a new fact, which came to the knowledge suddenly, and as such that was no ground for effecting retransfer within a period of two months. the court by the impugned order quashed the impugned transfer and at the same time awarded cost of rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the state government, with further direction that the state government shall recover the same from the officer who is responsible for issuing the transfer order.3. in the instant appeal it is being contended that the transfer of writ petitioner to rohtas i.e. his home town, was contrary to the policy decision of the government and accordingly the same was corrected by the impugned transfer order. in the event it is the policy decision of the government that no government employee shall be posted at his home town it was incumbent upon the government to prefer an appeal against the impugned order in its entirety in order to uphold the said decision and not to that part of the order which imposes the cost only.4. for that reasons as above, we are not inclined to accept said contention. this appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Barin Ghosh and A.K. Tripathy, JJ.

1. The writ petitioner was transferred to Rohtas in the end of December, 1996. Thereafter by order dated 26th April, 1997 the writ petitioner was transferred out of Rohtas. This transfer order was impugned in the writ jurisdiction. A counter affidavit was filed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Development, wherein it was stated that Rohtas is that home district of the writ petitioner. It does not appear that it was contended that since Rohtas was the home district of the writ petitioner, he could not be transferred to Rohtas and accordingly the original transfer order transferring him to Rohtas was issued by inadvertance, which was sought to be rectified by the transfer order, as was impugned in the writ petition.

2. The Learned Single Judge in that background held that there was no just reason to transfer the writ petitioner within two months from the date of his transfer to a particular place. The learned Single Judge pointed out that the Rohtas was the home district of the writ petitioner was known to the transferring authority at the time of transferring the petitioner to Rohtas and accordingly, the same was not a new fact, which came to the knowledge suddenly, and as such that was no ground for effecting retransfer within a period of two months. The Court by the impugned order quashed the impugned transfer and at the same time awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the State Government, with further direction that the State Government shall recover the same from the officer who is responsible for issuing the transfer order.

3. In the instant appeal it is being contended that the transfer of writ petitioner to Rohtas i.e. his home town, was contrary to the policy decision of the government and accordingly the same was corrected by the impugned transfer order. In the event it is the policy decision of the government that no government employee shall be posted at his home town it was incumbent upon the government to prefer an appeal against the impugned order in its entirety in order to uphold the said decision and not to that part of the order which imposes the cost only.

4. For that reasons as above, we are not inclined to accept said contention. This appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2006 Same Parties The State of Bihar and ors. vs Bindeshswari Prasad Singh and ... Same Subject ;Service Same Judge Barin Ghosh and A.K. Tripathy, JJ.

;Service