IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8173 of 2008 SHEO SHANKAR DAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7. 22.07.2008 Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the private respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by his order of transfer dated 5.2.2008 the petitioner came to this Court earlier in CWJC No. 3588 of 2008. The ground was that the transfer was at a very short interval of approximately eight months with no justification and he was to superannuate as soon as 31.3.2009. The Counter affidavit of the State justified the transfer for an eye ailment of the petitioner allegedly affecting discharge of duty by him placing reliance on the order of the District Magistrate bearing letter no. 45 dated 7.2.2008. The petitioner relied on his recent medical prescription describing him as fit for normal duty and to resume duty as recent as 3.3.2008. By order dated 16.4.2008, the writ application was allowed and the matter remanded for reconsideration in the light of the discussion therein. The fresh order dated 13.5.2008 reiterating the original order of transfer dated 5.2.2008 has then come to be passed. Counsel for the State contended that the State has reconsidered the matter. Counsel for the private respondent no. 4 contended that the eye ailment of the petitioner was affecting discharge of duty for which reliance was placed on the aforesaid letter dated 7.2.2008. The letter no. 45 of the District Magistrate dated 7.2.2008 was the subject matter of consideration also in CWJC No. 3588 of 2008. Much stress has been laid on the same document in the present writ application also by the respondents. The order presently impugned does not at all deal with the issue and findings of this Court on the previous occasion based on the medical prescription of the petitioner that he was fit for normal duty and to resume work meaning thereby that his eye ailment was not a hindrance to work. The impugned order now appears to sidetrack that issue and raise another issue of the performance of the petitioner being not up to mark. The additional ground urged is that the petitioner should have not grievance since in view of his impending superannuation on 31.3.2009 he has been posted near his home district at Begusarai. Once the respondents took a stand before this Court on which the Court gave a finding, which has not been assailed by the official respondents, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned order when it attempts to sidetrack the previous finding of the Court. The writ application is therefore allowed. The impugned order dated 13.5.2008 is accordingly set aside. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)