IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1263 of 2011 ARUN KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE CHANDRABALI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAINPATTI, P.S. GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ, AT PRESENT ASSISTANT, LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, LALGANJ, VAISHALI ------PETITIONER Versus 1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE AREA MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, HAZIPUR 3.THE BRANCH MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, LALGANJ, VAISHALI------------------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.D.K.Tandan, Advocate For the respondents :Mr.Rajesh Prasad Choudhary,Advocate ----- 2. 21.01.2011 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure-1) issued by the Area Manager, Bihar State Land Development Bank as also office order dated 24.12.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Bank by which earlier order the petitioner has been transferred from Hajipur to Navinagar and by subsequent order has been relieved for joining at Navinagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in transferring the petitioner is a mala fide act on their part because he had earlier moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C.No.2866 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 19.8.2009 with a direction to the Managing Director to dispose of the representation of the petitioner for payment of his salary 2 for various months prior to 2006. Thereafter the petitioner also filed a contempt application being M.J.C.No.3473 of 2009 in which he claims that strong view was taken by this Court for disobeying the orders. It is submitted by learned counsel that the respondent Managing Director became angry because of filing of cases by the petitioner and has accordingly out of malice transferred him from his previous place of posting. Learned counsel for the respondent Land Development Bank, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has not been singled out for transfer and for the reasons stated in the office order dated 24.12.2010 he along with 12 other Assistants and Accountants has been transferred in the interest of the Bank considering the shortage of staff at various places. From a perusal of the materials on the record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a clear cut case of mala fide against the respondents. In any case, transfer is an incident of service and as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner has remained at a particular station for almost three years. Since a large number of similarly situated 3 employees have been transferred to various places, this Court does not think it proper to come to the conclusion that the respondents have acted in a mala fide manner in the present case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the impugned orders. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/