IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11494 of 2011 Ram Prasad Mishra SON OF LATE SANSARI MISHRA RESIDENT OF CHHATRAPATI, P.O. BODHA CHAPRA, VIA NACHHUA JALALPUR, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SIWAN. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SARAN CANAL DIVISION, GANDAK PROJECT, CHAPRA. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SARAN CANAL DIVISION, GANDAK PROJECT, CHAPRA. ---------------------------------- 2 20/09/2011 Petitioner has approached the High Court yet another time after speaking order contained in annexure- 3/1 dated 10th June, 2010 came to be passed. Contention of the learned counsel was earlier considered by the learned Single Judge when he filed C.W.J.C. No.7462 of 2010 that an office bearer of a trade union was entitled to protection against transfer and since the petitioner fell in the category of protected employee, he could not be transferred from his present place of posting. The impugned order annexure-3/1 is the - 2 - speaking order which has now been passed by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Siwan. The speaking order has dealt with, if not taken into consideration, the government circular which provides for protection against transfer of an office bearer but that protection has to be extended only once to the said office bearer during his service career. There is categorical finding given in the impugned order that the petitioner had already been given this benefit earlier in the year 2002 and, therefore, invoking the protection against transfer repeatedly is not available to him. It is not denied that the petitioner is working at the present place of posting for many a years and that the fig leaf of a legal argument is not available to him. There is no other law which prevents the respondents to transfer the petitioner on administrative ground. Since the reasons given by the respondents are in terms of the direction of the High Court and after considering the circular issued in this regard by the State which has no applicability to the facts of the case; especially when the petitioner had been given the benefit earlier, there is no reason to interfere or set aside the speaking order and - 3 - prevent the respondents from transferring the petitioner. Petitioner would be well advised to comply with the order or else the respondents will have the freedom to act in accordance with the Rules. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)