IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1137 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Ministerial Secretariat, Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director (Administration)-cum- Joint Secretary, Humar Resources Department, Bihar Patna. … Respondents-Appellants Versus MANOJ KUMAR son of Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of C-5, Bankmens Colony, Chitragupta Nagar, P. S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna at present posted as D.S.E, Madhubani. … Petitioner-Respondent ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-III : Mr. Piyush Lall, AC to AAG-III For the respondent : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Adv. ------ 4. 25.01.2010 I.A. No. 5583 of 2009 This is an application for condonation of delay. 2. Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Piyush Lall, learned Assistant Counsel for the State and Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the petition, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay and accordingly, the delay stands condoned. 4. Interlocutory application is accordingly - 2 - allowed. L.P.A. No. 1137 of 2009 5. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 7. In this intra court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15828 of 2008 whereby the learned single Judge has quashed the order of cancellation of transfer on the singular ground that it has already been executed. 8. In course of hearing, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the issue that has been decided by the learned single Judge may not be dwelt upon in this intra court appeal but the fact remains the learned single Judge should have granted liberty to the State Government to pass a fresh order. - 3 - 9. In course of hearing we have been apprised that during the pendency of the writ petition as stay of the order of transfer was continuing the incumbents are continuing in their respective posts. Be it noted, the order of cancellation of transfer had been quashed on the foundation that the State Government could not have cancelled the same as it had been executed. 10. In view of the aforesaid without interfering with the order and the submission being a limited one by the learned Additional Advocate General, we only observe that the State Government is at liberty to pass a fresh order of transfer if the necessity so warrants and the situation so demands. When we say so, it should not be construed that we have imposed any kind of fetters on the authority and the power of the State. We have only so stated so that the State Government should be guided by the doctrine of model employer. We have also clarified this position as Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Additional Advocate General has expressed an apprehension that in case a fresh order of transfer is passed regard being had to the administrative exigencies, the competent authority of the State may be - 4 - hauled up for contempt or may be misunderstood. Hence, we have clarified the position. 11. With the aforementioned clarificatory note, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. kanchan (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)