IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2940 of 2009 ==================================================== SURENDRA PRASAD - Petitioner/s(s) Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Respondent/s(s) ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. S.B.K.MANGALAM For the Respondent/s: Mr. (AAG11) Mr. SUDHIR SINGH(ASST.SG) Mr. SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Mr. SUMAN KUMARI SINGH ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA DATE: 12-07-2011 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3/ 12/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Subsequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand and the Respondent No.8, the State of Bihar. Since they both were working as Assistant Engineers they submitted a joint application for mutual transfer dated 25.10.2006. The petitioner desired allocation to the State of Bihar while Respondent No.8 desired allocation to the State of Jharkhand. The policy guidelines formulated for cadre allocation recognizes requests for mutual transfer in accordance with the conditions stipulated therein. On 26.2.2009 the State of Bihar in the Road Construction Department relieved the petitioner for joining the State of Jharkhand as no decision on the 2 request for mutual transfer had been taken. The petitioner then filed this writ application on 3.3.2009. On 4.3.2009 the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his present service in the State of Bihar till further orders. The respondent State of Bihar has filed a counter affidavit enclosing an order dated 19.5.2009 of the Home (Special) Department, the competent authority to decide questions for mutual transfer. It rejects the request of the petitioner on the ground that considerable time had passed and no recommendation from the State of Jharkhand had been received. It is therefore apparent that there has been no rejection on merits of the request for mutual transfer. The Court considered it proper to direct the State of Jharkhand to be impleaded as party respondent. Consequently, a copy of the writ application was served on Shri Dhrub Mukherjee, learned counsel who appears for the State of Jharkhand and is also present today. Let the petitioner add State of Jharkhand as Respondent No.9. Respondent No.8 is not before the Court. The request for mutual transfer was made on 25.1.2006. Today considerable time has passed of over four and a half years. It is not known what is the factual 3 situation obtaining today with regard to the desire for mutual transfer. The petitioner submits that he is still desirous. The Court does not have the benefit of knowing the desire of Respondent No.8. Much may depend on it. Let the State of Jharkhand solicit the views of Respondent No.8 and circumstances so warranting send appropriate recommendation to the State of Bihar. The Court expects the State of Jharkhand to do so within a maximum period of 8 weeks from today considering that it is represented by a counsel and Respondent No.8 is not present before the Court. Depending on the nature of the recommendation made by the State of Jharkhand, the State of Bihar shall pass appropriate final orders within a maximum period of another two months. In view of the interim relief granted by this Court to the petitioner, the question of any coercive action against him does not arise till such fresh decision as directed is not taken. Let a copy of the order be given to the counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)