IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1825 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11206 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 8235 of 2011 And Interlocutory Application No. 8236 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1825 of 2011 ====================================================== Ram Dahin Sharma, S/O Late Binda Singh, Resident of Village- Dourma, P.S- Anti, District- Gaya. .... .... Writ petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chief Engineer-2, Bhagalpur (Headquarter Patna), Rural Works Department. 4. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle-2, Gaya, District- Gaya. 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division No.3, Gaya. 6. The Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Co-Ordination Department, Govt. of Bihar. 7. The Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Co- Ordination Department, Govt. of Bihar. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate. With Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Harish Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr.Lalan Kumar, A.C. to GP 26. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 14-12-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8236 of 2011: The delay of 26 days occurred in filing the Letters Patna High Court LPA No.1825 of 2011 (4) dt.14-12-2011 2 / 3 2 Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. Re: Letters Patent Appeal No. 1825 of 2011 & Interlocutory Application No. 8235 of 2011: This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner, a Government servant, against the order dated 20th September 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 11206 of 2011. The appellant claims that he has been elected as President of the Rural Development Department Employees’ Union, Gaya and that he, under the Government communication dated 8th October 2005, enjoys immunity against the order of transfer. The Government letter dated 8th October 2005 refers to the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 5369 of 1995 and that non-transferability of the office bearer of the employees’ Union is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, contrary to the judgment of this court, the State Government decided that the office bearer of the State Non-Gazetted Employees’ Union will not be transferred for two years once in the service career. Learned Counsel Mr. Jitendra Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has strenuously urged that it is the first time the appellant has been elected as President of the Union. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid immunity against the transfer. We see no merit in the argument. As recorded hereinabove, the immunity granted by the State Government is in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Besides; the immunity has been granted to the State Level Non-Gazetted Patna High Court LPA No.1825 of 2011 (4) dt.14-12-2011 3 / 3 3 Employees’ Union; whereas, it is indisputable that the appellant has been elected as President of a District Unit. In our opinion, the aforesaid communication cannot be invoked in case of the appellant. Mr. Singh has next submitted that the appellant is nearing the age of superannuation and that he is ailing from certain renal disease. Keeping in view his ill -health and the fast approaching superannuation also, the appellant need not be transferred. With respect to the ailment suffered by the appellant and the fact that he is due to retire within two years, the appellant may, after reporting for duty at the transferred place (Aurangabad), make representation to the Respondent No. 3- the Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department for sympathetic consideration. If such representation is made, the Respondent No. 3 will consider and decide the same within three weeks from the date of the receipt of the representation. It is clarified that the order of the Chief Engineer that may be made on the representation will be final and binding to the appellant. In the event, the representation is rejected, such rejection shall not give a fresh cause of action to the appellant. The Appeal and the application stand disposed of. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)