IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1056 of 2007 SHAILESH NANDAN DIWAKAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 12.05.2008 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10522 of 2007 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant was working as District Panchayat Raj Officer, Bhagalpaur . By notification dated 25th July, 2007, he was transferred on administrative ground as District Panchayat Raj Officer, Rohtas. In the light of the aforesaid notification, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur by order as contained in memo dated 25th July, 2007 relieved him from the afternoon of 26th July, 2007. Writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the same, filed the writ application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the notification of transfer dated 25th July, 2007 though was not received by him still the District Magistrate relieved him with effect from the afternoon of 26th July, 2007 and that itself vitiates the order of transfer as also the order relieving him. He further submits that the order of relieving is contrary to the policy decision of the State Government. We do not find any substance in the submission of the - 2 - learned counsel . The District Magistrate, while relieving the writ petitioner had referred to the notification and in our opinion, the order of transfer shall not be vitiated only on the assertion of the petitioner that it was not received by him. Mr. Jha, then submits that the writ petitioner-appellant ought not to have been relieved immediately and ought to have been given sufficient time before relieving him. As the writ petitioner-appellant was transferred on administrative ground, nothing prevented the District Magistrate from relieving him immediately. Other grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is that before relieving him, he was not paid the entire arrears of salary as also the advance transfer allowance. This in the submission of Shri Jha vitiates the order of transfer and relieving. However, he admits that the writ petitioner-appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) as salary and Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) as advance travelling allowance. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of B.S. Forum for Public Interest Litigation Versus State of Bihar reported in 1995 (1) P.L.J.R. 152. In the present case, the writ petitioner-appellant was paid arrears of salary as also advance travelling allowance which may be short to his total entitlement but in our opinion, this itself shall not vitiate either the order of - 3 - transfer or relieving. The judgment of this court in the case of B.S.Forum for Public Interest Litigation (supra) has to be understood in the background of the facts of the case. As such the grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant in this regard is also unfounded. Another grievance of the writ petitioner-appellant is non- payment of his salary. While dismissing the writ application, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the writ petitioner-appellant to file representation and direction to the respondents to examine his claim. Writ petitioner-appellant shall be at liberty to raise the aforesaid grievance in an appropriate representation. Needless to say that in case such a representation is filed, the respondents shall examine the same in accordance with law. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. pkj (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J )