IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7550 of 2011 RAMESH SINGH . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- 4 19-05-2011 Heard the parties. The matter has come to this court because by the impugned order dated 8-4-2011 passed in O.A. no. 240/2011 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna refused to stay an order dated 29-3-2011 passed by the Executive Engineer (Electrical). The effect of that order is to relieve the petitioner from AIR, Electrical Sub Division, CCW, Patna for Siliguri, Electrical Sub Division, CCW. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, we had earlier stayed his relieving and had granted time to the respondents to get ready in the matter. Now a petition has been filed for vacating the interim order of stay. We have heard the parties at length and it is evident from the counter affidavit that petitioner was initially transferred from Patna to Siliguri by order dated 13-11-2003 (Annexure-1). The said order was cancelled 2 by a higher officer on 1-4-2004 (annexure-2). As a result, the Executive Engineer who had issued the order of transfer cancelled the transfer order on 10-08-2004 (annexure-3). Subsequently, the matter relating to power of the Executive Engineer belonging to Civil Construction Wing appears to have been examined at the higher level and the view taken in the letter dated 1-4-2004 (Annexure-2) has been reviewed by order contained in Annexure R/5 dated 4-3-2011. Once the order dated 1-4-2004 (Annexure-2) was withdrawn by Annexure- R/5 the order impugned before the Tribunal dated 29-3-2011 was issued to relieve the petitioner for joining the transferred place, that is, Siliguri. Pursuant to Annexure- R/5 an order was issued on 28-3-2011 to clarify that the earlier order of transfer dated 13-11-2003 which was made in public interest was by the competent authority. On behalf of the petitioner several points were raised before us as to whether CPWD Code or Manual will apply in respect of service conditions of the petitioner or the AIR Manual and subsequent 3 clarification contained in Annexure-12 but we are not persuaded to go into the merits of the case because the matter has arisen on account of an interim order by the Tribunal. But without going into the merits of the case, it is apparent on the face of the record that the earlier order of transfer of the petitioner passed in November, 2003 is sought to be implemented now in 2011 inspite of its having been subsequently cancelled by the competent authority, may be under the influence of Annexure-2 dated 1-4-2004. In our considered view, transfer is an ordinary incident of service and it is the prerogative of the competent authority representing the employer to transfer an employee within the limits of the service conditions. However, factors requiring transfer may undergo vital changes with long passage of time and, hence, automatic revival and implementation of an order of transfer passed more than seven years earlier does not appear to be reasonable. Hence, in order to shorten the litigation and preventing harassment to the parties, we quash the order dated 29-3-2011 under challenge before the Tribunal. But at the same time, we grant liberty to the 4 competent authority to apply its mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and if it is so inclined, it may take afresh decision in respect of transfer of the petitioner in accordance with law. This shall dispose of not only this writ petition but also the proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)