IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.814 of 2008 NILAMBER JHA ………….. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE SECRETARY COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 2. THE FINANCE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DARBHANGA DIVISION, LEHARISARAI, DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, MADHUBANI 6. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MADHUBANI …….. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Raghunath Kumar, Advocate For the respondent nos.1 to 6 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate Additional Advocate General – I Mr. Ritesh Kumar, JC to AAG -I --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 12th November, 2008 The grievance of the appellant that he was wrongfully denied salary for the period from 22nd January, 1994 to 7th August, 1997 was found without any substance by the single judge. 2. The single judge considered the matter thus: “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 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 2 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 persons 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 no application in the facts of the case. Those, who fall of the law themselves, cannot seek solace in the principles of natural justice.” 3. We find ourselves in agreement with the consideration of the matter by the single judge. 4. Letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/- 3