Umesh Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - single judge refused to interfere with the order of transfer, whereby the appellant was transferred to rural development (special circle), hazaribagh - order challenged - transfer order passed on recommendation of minister - minister not made party by name - not proper to give findings against him - transfer not formed at the instance of minister - no ground to be made out to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the single judge - appeal dismissed - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - )-389/2001 (part file). having perused the file, we are not happy with the manner of transfer of one or other officer of the department put we do not want to make any observation as it can not be alleged that the appellant has been transferred at the instance of the minister, whose name has been disclosed at paragraph no.orders.j. mukhopadhaya, j. 1. the appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th august, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the learned single judge has refused to interfere with the order of transfer dated 29th june, 2005, whereby, the appellant has been transferred to rural development (special circle), hazaribagh. 2. it appears that after re-organization of the state, the appellant continued to function under successor state of bihar. his services were placed under the state of jharkhand on 5th october, 2004. he joined the state of jharkhand, whereinafter, he was posted as assistant engineer, rural development (special division), dhanbad, by notification dated 16th november, 2004. the appellant joined at dhanbad but after 7 to 8 months, he was transferred by the impugned notification dated 29th 3une, 2005 from dhanbad to rural development (special circle), hazaribagh. 3. the main plea, as was taken by the appellant in the writ petition, was that he was transferred on the basis of the recommendation of the minister of some other department, without any application by any individual. there being no specific pleading, learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. at paragraph no. 7 of the present memo of appeal, it was pleaded that to humiliate the appellant, he was transferred without the recommendation of the establishment committee, on the basis of pairvi, made by one satyanand bhokta, minister of the other department, as the appellant had refused to oblige his party workers. having noticed the aforesaid statement, this court by order dated 1st september, 2005 made the following observations: we are not inclined to stay the operation of the transfer order dated 29th june, 2005, but we are also inclined to hear out the matter, having regard to the specific averments made in paragraph 7 of the memorandum of appeal. since mr. jhunjhunwala has already appeared for the respondents, let this matter be treated as ready for hearing on appearance and be listed for hearing in the week commencing on 19th september, 2005. the appellant is directed to join the transferred post within a week from date. the respondents will be entitled to file counter-affidavit to the memorandum of appeal by 19th september, 2005. we make it clear that the appeal is being entertained only on account of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the memorandum of appeal and in the event, the said averments turn out to be incorrect, we shall not hesitate to impose heavy cost on the appellant. mr. jhunjhunwala appearing for the respondents is also directed to produce the original records on the next date of hearing. 4. the respondents have produced the original file no. gra.vi. 4(stha.)-389/2001 (part file). having perused the file, we are not happy with the manner of transfer of one or other officer of the department put we do not want to make any observation as it can not be alleged that the appellant has been transferred at the instance of the minister, whose name has been disclosed at paragraph no. 7 of the memorandum of appeal. further, none, including the minister concerned, whose name has been shown at paragraph no. 7 of the memorandum of appeal, having been impleaded as party respondent by name, it is not desirable to give any finding against any individual. we, therefore, find no ground to be made out to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the learned single judge. the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. let the original file be handed over to the learned government pleader no. i.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th August, 2005, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of transfer dated 29th June, 2005, whereby, the appellant has been transferred to Rural Development (Special Circle), Hazaribagh.

2. It appears that after re-organization of the State, the appellant continued to function under successor State of Bihar. His services were placed under the State of Jharkhand on 5th October, 2004. He joined the State of Jharkhand, whereinafter, he was posted as Assistant Engineer, Rural Development (Special Division), Dhanbad, by Notification dated 16th November, 2004. The appellant joined at Dhanbad but after 7 to 8 months, he was transferred by the impugned Notification dated 29th 3une, 2005 from Dhanbad to Rural Development (Special Circle), Hazaribagh.

3. The main plea, as was taken by the appellant in the writ petition, was that he was transferred on the basis of the recommendation of the Minister of some other Department, without any application by any individual. There being no specific pleading, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. At paragraph No. 7 of the present memo of appeal, it was pleaded that to humiliate the appellant, he was transferred without the recommendation of the Establishment Committee, on the basis of Pairvi, made by one Satyanand Bhokta, Minister of the other Department, as the appellant had refused to oblige his party workers. Having noticed the aforesaid statement, this Court by order dated 1st September, 2005 made the following observations:

We are not inclined to stay the operation of the transfer order dated 29th June, 2005, but we are also inclined to hear out the matter, having regard to the specific averments made in paragraph 7 of the memorandum of appeal. Since Mr. Jhunjhunwala has already appeared for the respondents, let this matter be treated as ready for hearing on appearance and be listed for hearing in the week commencing on 19th September, 2005. The appellant is directed to join the transferred post within a week from date. The respondents will be entitled to file counter-affidavit to the memorandum of appeal by 19th September, 2005. We make it clear that the appeal is being entertained only on account of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the memorandum of appeal and in the event, the said averments turn out to be incorrect, we shall not hesitate to impose heavy cost on the appellant. Mr. Jhunjhunwala appearing for the respondents is also directed to produce the original records on the next date of hearing.

4. The respondents have produced the original File No. Gra.Vi. 4(Stha.)-389/2001 (part file). Having perused the file, we are not happy with the manner of transfer of one or other officer of the department Put we do not want to make any observation as it can not be alleged that the appellant has been transferred at the instance of the Minister, whose name has been disclosed at paragraph No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal. Further, none, including the Minister concerned, whose name has been shown at paragraph No. 7 of the memorandum of appeal, having been impleaded as party respondent by name, it is not desirable to give any finding against any individual. We, therefore, find no ground to be made out to interfere with the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

5. Let the original file be handed over to the learned Government Pleader No. I.