WP(C) 4503/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 4. I have also h eard Ms. M. Bora, learned State Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-VI order dated 1.10.2008 , by which in partial modification of the earlier order dated 26.9.2008, the res pondent No. 4 has been allowed to remain at his present place of posting i.e. Ru ngong PWD Division till March, 2009. The order further stipulates that the respo ndent No. 4 should take over the charges of Executive Engineer (Plg) Jairampur C ircle after March, 2009. The earlier order dated 26.9.2008 was issued transferri ng the petitioner to Rungong Division and the respondent No. 4 to Jairampur. Pri or to that the petitioner was transferred to Jairampur by order dated 12.6.2008, but he did not join there. At that point of time, he was on deputation to Urban Development Department and was posted at Pashighat. Thus, although the transfer order was issued on 12.6.2008, he did not join at Jairampur and continued at Pa shighat upto 5.9.2008. Thereafter by his letter dated 8.9.2008 he intimated the authority that he had handed over the charges on 5.9.2008. He also desired his p osting in the specified places, one of which is Rungong Division. It appears tha t in consideration of his request, the Chief Minister of the State approved his posting at Rungong Division to the replacement of the respondent No. 4. That is how the order dated 26.9.2008 was issued posting him at Rungong Division and the respondent No. 4 at Jairampur. Thus, although the petitioner was transferred to Jairampur by order dated 12.6.2008, he did not join there and joined Rungong as per the approval of the Chief Minister of the State. After the aforesaid development, it was the turn of the responde nt No. 4 to make representation to allow him to remain at Rungong Division till the end of March, 2009. The matter was processed and eventually the Chief Minist er of the State directed to allow the respondent No. 4 to continue at Rungong Di vision, as a consequence of which the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 was issued. Thus it appears that both the orders i.e. order dated 26.9.2008 and 1.10.2008 h ave been issued as per the approval of the Chief Minister of the State. In view of the above, it will be appropriate for both the partie s to approach the Chief Minister for appropriate action in the matter inasmuch a s the present situation has been created because of the action on the part of th e Chief Minister of the State. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondent N o. 4 submits that the issue has already been resolved by order dated 1.10.2008 a llowing the respondent No. 4 to continue at Rungong upto March, 2009. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha t in view of passing of the order dated 1.10.2008, the petitioner will be withou t any posting. It will be pertinent to mention here that the orders dated 26.9.2 008 and 1.10.2008 have been issued without any reference to the earlier order da ted 12.6.2008. There is nothing to show the order dated 12.6.2008 has been withd rawn and/or cancelled. At this stage Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner su bmits that the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 has been passed at the instance of the local MLA, who incidentally is the brother relation of the respondent No. 4 . Countering the argument, Mr. Baruah, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No . 4 submits that the MLA in question being the local MLA there was nothing wrong in approaching him by the respondent No. 4. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of providing tha t both the parties may approach before appropriate authority and said authority may resolve the issue. Writ petition is disposed of. Interim order stands vacated.