IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1486 of 2009 Gautam Sinha . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 05.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ application seeks multifarious reliefs not connected with each other. The principles of writ jurisdiction prohibit seeking of multifarious relief in a writ application for different causes of action. But, there have been some developments in the matter and certain claims have attained finality in the State of Bihar. The petitioner is posted in the reorganized State of Jharkhand. The Court in order to cut short the litigation and prevent further agony to the petitioner proceeds in the matter to that extent. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 21.12.1999 which was revoked on 26.2.2000. A departmental proceeding is stated to be pending against the petitioner in which the enquiry is stated to have been completed and allegedly he has been found guilty of two charges. If the petitioner has been allocated the State of Jharkhand pursuant to the reorganization of the State of Bihar he carries with him the burden of the departmental proceeding, finality to which has to be given by the State of Jharkhand. On 2 the final order to be passed in the departmental proceeding shall depend the manner in which the period of suspension shall be treated including any claims for salary. The Court therefore directs the State of Bihar to forward the service records of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand inclusive of the departmental proceedings forthwith upon presentation of a copy of this order, if not already done. In so far as the period between 26.2.2000 to 26.2.2001 is concerned, being the period of waiting for posting, counsel for the State of Bihar submits from Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 7.10.2009 that it has been regularized. Naturally the petitioner is now entitled to his salary for the period. This shall bind the State of Jharkhand also as the State of Bihar has forwarded a copy of the order to the Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The next claim is that considering his date of appointment as 1988, on completion of 10 years he was entitled to be considered for time bound promotion, is a matter to be considered by the State of Jharkhand which alone has territorial jurisdiction in the matter now. The last contention was that the petitioner had made a request for mutual transfer along with 3 another by which the petitioner had requested allocation to the State of Bihar. In fact, this was the entire sheet anchor of the writ petition to justify jurisdiction in this Court to consider the claims. The respondent State of Bihar has enclosed as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit an order dated 23.7.2007, the enclosure to which at serial 46 considers the request for mutual transfer vis-à-vis one Binay Kumar Sinha in the State of Jharkhand. It states that in absence of any proper application from Binay Kumar Sinha, the application of the petitioner looses its status as an application for mutual transfer. The contention of the petitioner that it does not tantamount to rejection of his application for mutual transfer at this stage does not appeal to the Court. If it was a unilateral application, the question of sending him back to Bihar on basis of a mutuality which did not exist does not arise. What developments on this aspect may take place tomorrow, what decisions may be taken on that by the authorities concerned are merely speculative which need not be gone into at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit that once after revoking the suspension on 26.2.2000, the respondents had ordered that the period of suspension shall be 4 treated as in service for all purposes, salary for the period of suspension follows as a matter of course and the pendency of the departmental proceeding is inconsequential. Counsel for the State submits that if the suspension has been followed by a departmental proceeding, the law mandates in Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code that in what manner the period of suspension shall be treated and what benefit shall or not be available for that period will depend on the final order in the departmental proceeding. There shall be no quarrel with the legal proposition advanced on behalf of the respondents. But the fact of the matter remains that the order revoking suspension is clear in its language and admits of no ambiguity. That still leaves the question open for the Court that whether an order passed by the respondents contrary to law can be a foundation for a mandamus. The Court holds that it cannot be so. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)