IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11250 of 2010 1. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI BRAHMDEO MAHTO R/O M.I.G. 132, KANKARBAGH COLONY, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTES ITI CAMPUS, DIGHA GHAT, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudha Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Adv. ------------- 3. 1.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on 27.12.1991 in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training. On 3.7.1998 he claims to have been asked to discharge the duties of a Technical Assistant as he held necessary qualification for the post. In pursuance of a representation, orders were passed on 26.2.1999 by which he was absorbed on a vacant post of Technical Assistant stating that he held the necessary qualification for the post as also the necessary recommendation from the examination controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already preferred 2 C.W.J.C. No. 12769 of 2010 with claim for salary on the post of Technical Assistant. The respondents had questioned the appointment of persons like the petitioner. Those aggrieved questioned their termination in a writ application affirmed by a Division Bench as also by the Supreme Court. It is fairly acknowledged that the petitioner was not one amongst them. Whether the petitioner was similarly situated as those who had moved the Court, or not, is not the concern of the Court in the present proceeding. The grievance presently is that the petitioner has been transferred by order dated 30.6.2010. While the enclosure to the order contained the list of 30 persons, the petitioner at serial 22 has been described as a Technical Assistant but the covering letter describes the person in the enclosed list as Clerk. The submission is that it amounts to demotion of the petitioner. Counsel for the State points out that the sheet anchor of the petitioner claiming the order of absorption dated 26.2.1999 states that the petitioner was being absorbed on the vacant post of Technical Assistant in his pay scale of Clerk. The order of transfer dated 30.6.2010 has been explained in 3 Annexure-A dated 17.8.2010 to the counter affidavit that the description of the petitioner as a Technical Assistant therein was an error which may be corrected to read as Clerk. The counter affidavit of the respondents specifically acknowledges the correctness and genuineness of the order dated 26.2.1999 absorbing the petitioner as Technical Assistant. It then seeks to explain it as purely an administrative arrangement to assert that the petitioner by inadvertence has been described as a Technical Assistant. The Court on a bare reading of the order dated 26.2.1999 find no ambiguity in it in so far as the issue of absorption is concerned. The stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit further satisfies the Court that the respondents do not appear to be very clear themselves of the status of the petitioner and the recitals contained in their own order. On absorption on the post of Technical Assistant quite simply the petitioner became a Technical Assistant. If he became a Technical Assistant it is difficult to understand how his pay scale was fixed on the Lower post of Clerk. The counter affidavit does create an anomalous situation. 4 This Court is not satisfied from the pleadings in the counter affidavit that the respondents have been able to explain that the petitioner is not a Technical Assistant but a Clerk. The issue appears to be raising purely administrative matters. The Court therefore appropriately refers the matter to the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Labour Resources Department to pass a reasoned and speaking order on what post the petitioner has been working since 26.2.1999 and whether his absorption has been cancelled till date. If the petitioner has been working as Technical Assistant and stood absorbed in that capacity on 26.2.1999, quite naturally the petitioner is entitled to due protection of his status even in an order of transfer. The Court is left with no option but to pass an order of the present nature in view of the materials contained in the counter affidavit which were hardly beneficial to the Court in resolving the controversy. Let the Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order with regard to the petitioner within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this 5 order. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek interim directions from the Principal Secretary so that his claims are not made infructuous even before a final decision is taken. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)