WP(C) 6703/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner is before this Court, in essence, seeking a direction for enforce ment of the notification dated 11.10.2010 of the Deputy Secretary to the Governm ent of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department transferring him inter-se with the respondent No. 5. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue for mal notice to the private respondent. I have heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. BJ Ghosh, learned State Counsel, Assam. The petitioner has averred in his pleadings that, while serving as Agricultural Extension Officer, Manikpur Development Block (HQ) and Borobazar Development Blo ck, Bongaigaon under the Panchayat & rural Development Department, Government of Assam (hereafter for short referred to as the Department), he had, by the afore mentioned notification been transferred in the same capacity to Barpeta (HQ) of Barpeta District vice the respondent No. 5. This respondent had earlier approach ed this Court with WP(C) No. 6369/2010, assailing his transfer. By order dated 0 6.12.2010, this Court declined to entertain the challenge, but noticing his grou nd that his wife was in the family way required the official respondents to cons ider his representation and pass an appropriate order. This Court, however, did not direct such consideration and/or order to be a precondition for the implemen tation of his order of transfer. The petitioner is before this Court with the gr ievance that inspite of the negation of the challenge of the respondent No. 5, n o step has yet been taken by the official respondents ensuring the implementatio n of the notification dated 11.10.2010. Mr. Sikdar, while reiterating the above, has submitted that in view of the deadl ock, the petitioner has been denied his salary and has implored that necessary d irections be issued enabling him to join the post to which he has been transferr ed. Mr. Ghosh, being without any instruction, for the time being refrained from maki ng comments on the averments made in the writ petition. A bare perusal of the order dated 06.12.2010, rendered by this Court in WP(C) No . 6369/2010, makes it apparent that though it had required the official responde nts to dispose of the representation of the respondent No. 5 (writ petitioner th erein), it did not interdict the implementation of the notification dated 11.10. 2010 on that ground. In other words, the official respondents were obliged to pa ss necessary orders on the respondent No. 5’s representation and unless the same had been allowed was under a duty to ensure that the transfers are effectuated. In the above factual premise, it is considered appropriate to close this petitio n with a direction to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Panchayat and R ural Development Department to cause necessary steps to be taken to identify the authority before whom the respondent No. 5’s representation, if any, is pending and take early steps to ensure that the same is disposed of and appropriate ord ers are passed vis-a-vis the enforcement of the notification of transfer. In the backdrop of the order dated 06.12.2010 requiring the respondents to consider th e respondent No. 5’s representation, it is considered expedient that the petitio ner and the said respondent be accorded an opportunity of being heard before the process as above, is undertaken by the concerned departmental authority. As in view of the stalemate, according to the petitioner, he has suffered denial of pa yment of his salary, the exercise, as required should be completed within fortni ght from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs.