IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2171 of 2001 NILAMBER JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 2/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this writ application is for arrears of salary for the period ’22.1.1994 to 10.8.1997’. The petitioner, who was holding the post of Executive Extension Officer-cum-Cooperative Officer at Madhubani during the relevant time was transferred to South Chhotanagpur Division by order dated 14.12.1992. He is alleged not to have joined his transferred place of posting despite being relieved for the purpose, till 11.8.1997. He superannuated on 1.2.2000. The impugned order has then been passed on 16.5.2000 denying him his salary for the period that he did not join the transferred place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Cooperative Extension Officers’ Association and remained the Secretary of the Bihar State Non- gazetted Employees’ Federation to which the former is associated. He relies upon certain Government instructions, at annexure-6 series to submit that the office bearers of the association were not required to be transferred and that all such orders of transfer were required to be annulled. It is next urged that though the petitioner was aware of the order of his transfer, but was never relieved and no relieving orders were served upon him and immediately when the order was served on - 2 - him he went and joined the transferred place of posting. It was lastly urged that the order withholding salary for the period in question has been passed after his superannuation without an opportunity to even show cause. The fact that he was never relieved is apparent from the regular discharge of duties by him at Madhubani where he continued to attend office, visit blocks and submit reports. That he continued to discharge his duties with the tacit approval of the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies at Madhubani who was aware that the relieving order has not been served upon the petitioner. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, affirmed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The submission on behalf of the State from the same is that despite his relieving order the petitioner chose not to obey the transfer order and defying it continued to remain at Madhubani. He represented against the transfer on various grounds which were unwarranted. It was only when he failed to obtain stay of his transfer that he ultimately went and joined the transferred posting. That any discharge of duties by the petitioner in this manner at Madhubani was unilateral contrary to law and was not with the approval of the Government. That the petitioner is the Secretary of a union cannot be lost sight of by the Court. That he may have had certain misconception about his prowess are more than evident from the admitted fact that he had remained at Madhubani prior to the transfer for more than ten years. If any executive instruction had been issued - 3 - with regard to the issue of transfer of office bearers, to this Court, that will not vest a legal right in the petitioner to found a cause of action in the writ application to justify his not joining the transferred place of posting when no legal remedy was availed of in pursuance of such administrative circular against the order of transfer. In any event, transfer is an incidence of service. At best the circular provided liberty to represent, which it is apparent from the statement in the counter affidavit, he has already availed. The order of relieving of the petitioner issued by the Assistant Registrar at Madhubani has been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit dated 22.01.1994. The petitioner acknowledges being aware of the order of transfer. He is the Secretary of the Association of the employees. He continues to visit his office every day, discharges his duties, though unilaterally, in the office and yet claims that he was not aware of orders being issued from the same office in respect of him. A presumption arises under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act with regard to the order of relieving having issued in the usual course, communicated to the person concerned, more so when the order of relieving him specifically marks a copy of the order to ;him for communication. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the petitioner in a misconception of his prowess of his official status persisted in consequence of remaining at Madhubani, cannot lend justification to his claims for absence of service of a relieving order for reasons already discussed above. The issue of natural justice has - 4 - no application in the facts of the case. Those, who fall of the law themselves, cannot seek solace in the principles of natural justice. This Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly rejected. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )