$~2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7847/2008, CM No.15149/2008 (for stay) & CM No.3855/2011 (for vacation of stay) & CM No.8087/2011 (of the petitioner for direction). BIJENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Adv. versus TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 23.09.2011 1. The petition was filed impugning the order dated 31st October, 2008 of the Transport Commissioner, Haryana transferring the petitioner from Delhi to Narnaul. It was stated on the said transfer order that “no TA/DA and joining time will be admissible to the officials as transfers have been made at his own request”. The case of the petitioner in the petition was that the petitioner had not requested for his transfer from Delhi to Narnaul and thus the order of transfer on the premise that the petitioner had himself requested for transfer was bad. 2. Notice of the petition was issued and the transfer order dated 31st October, 2008 stayed. The said interim order has continued in force till now. 3. The respondent Haryana Roadways in its counter affidavit has admitted the mistake in transferring the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner had himself requested for the same. It is however stated that vide order dated 16th December, 2008 the petitioner had been transferred to Narnaul on administrative grounds. 1/- 4. The counsel for the respondents contends that challenge by the petitioner in this petition to the order dated 31st October, 2008 has become infructuous upon making of the transfer order dated 16th December, 2008 and which has not been challenged by the petitioner. 5. The counsel for the petitioner though also contends that the petition has become infructuous but contends that it has not so become infructuous owing to the order dated 16th December, 2008 transferring him on administrative grounds. He has invited attention to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit and along with which several orders of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Delhi and letter dated 6th June, 2011 are annexed. The letter dated 6th June, 2011 is as under:- “In compliance of Orders of Hon‟ble High Court New Delhi dated 16/05/2011 and in view of Legal opinion of Panel Advocate, State of Haryana, in the case of „Bijender Singh v. Transport Commissioner, Haryana & Anr. W.P.(C)No.7847/2008‟ Sh. Bijender Singh C. No.40 is hereby allowed to join his duties w.e.f. 24/05/2011 and he is Posted at Advance Booking on Panipat Bus Stand. However, he will not entitle for Salary for the period from 09/05/2011 to 23/05/2011 till the decision of application/petition.” 6. It may be mentioned that this writ petition at one stage was dismissed in default and was restored vide order dated 16th May, 2011 and the interim order earlier in force was also revived. 7. The counsel for the respondents has contended that the orders annexed to the rejoinder including the order dated 6th June, 2011 (supra) are not transfer orders which the Transport Commissioner alone is entitled to make but are orders of posting within the Delhi Depot and which the General Manager of the Delhi Depot is empowered to pass. 2/- 8. I find merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondents. The orders annexed with the rejoinder cannot be said to be orders of transfer from one Depot to another but are merely orders of posting within the Depot. 9. There is also merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondents that there is no challenge to the order dated 16th December, 2008 transferring the petitioner to Narnaul on administrative grounds. The continuance thereafter of the petitioner in the Delhi Deport is only for the reason of the interim order in this petition. 10. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that there is yet another order transferring the petitioner back to Delhi. However without the same being pleaded or shown, no notice thereof can be taken. 11. The petition impugning the order dated 31st October, 2008 is therefore dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,J SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 pp.. 3/-