WA 59/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY (Amitava Roy,J) Heard Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland for the appellant s and Mr. B.D. Das, Senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. The judgment and order dtd. 11.02.2001 passed in WP(C) No.22(K)/2011 thereby, su spending the operation of the order dtd. 31.01.2011 whereby, the respondent here in was transferred as Executive Engineer (Design) under the Chief Engineer, R.N. B., Kohima is under challenge. The respondent at the relevant time was serving as Executive Engineer, (CAWD) Na galand Kohima. Being aggrieved by this decision, he instituted the aforemention ed writ petition challenging the same, inter alia on the ground that the transfe r was prematured as he had not completed the normal tenure of three years at his earlier place of posting and that his posting having regard to the pending work s under him would not serve public interest. The respondent however, undertook to abide by the order of transfer if afforded a reasonable time to wind up his f inal pending works and hand over the charge to his new incumbent. Though, no affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the appellants, Mr. Jamir, learn ed Addl. Advocate General representing them, he vehemently resisted the challeng e and the relief prayed for by the respondent. He inter alia pointed out that t he transfer sought to be effected was not from one station to another, but withi n the same office and that if implemented would not in any way hamper the ongoin g public projects. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel f or the parties, though did not interfere with the order of transfer, acceded to the request of the respondent and allowed him time till 31.03.2011 to hand over the charge of his office and move out to his new place of posting. As a corollary, the operation of the impugned order of transfer was kept in abey ance till that date i.e. 31.03.2011. As the learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland reiterated the above stand of th e State, we sought to know about impelling reason, if any, which in public inter est did not permit the respondent to continue as Executive Engineer, CAWD even f or a day. This query was made in view of the submission made by Mr. Jamir that the order of transfer not having interfered with, the learned Single Judge ought not to have suspended the operation thereof. Though, initially Mr. Jamir took s ometime to produce the relevant records and/or to obtain instructions in this re gard, today in course of his arguments he fairly submitted that the State Govern ment is not inclined to disclose the reasons, Mr. Jamir however submitted that t ransfer being an incidence of service, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with, as it would otherwise set a wrong precedent. Mr. Das, however in response has argued that the respondent’s request for time i s in overwhelming public interest, as according to him, the same would suffer if he abandons his pending works and proceeds on transfer. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the r eason for which the learned Single Judge had granted time to the respondent to c omply with the order of transfer, we do not feel persuaded to interfere. Had th e appellants disclosed to us the compelling reason in public interest not justif ying the retention of the respondent at his earlier place of posting even for a day, the matter might have been otherwise. As they in their wisdom have chosen n ot to disclose any such reason, if any, to this Court, we do not feel that in t he facts and circumstances of the case the impugned judgment and order requires interference. The appeal is thus dismissed. We however make it clear that as t he learned Single Judge had suspended the order of suspension temporarily for th e reasons as recorded while dismissing the appeal, we observe that this determin ation would not serve a precedent in future. No costs.