IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2164 of 2011 AKHILESHWAR KUMAR, S/O LATE LAL NARAYAN PRASAD, R/O VILAGE/MOHALLA-C/O NAVIN CHAND, MOHAN IND. LANE NAYA TOLA, NEW YARPUR, P.S.- SARISTABAD, DISTRICT-PATNA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME MINISTRY (SPECIAL) GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 22.02.2011 From Annexure-1, it appears that against the order of allocation of his cadre to the Jharkhand State petitioner had filed a representation. His representation was forwarded to the Central Government and awaiting any decision of Central Government his relieving was stayed in 2007. It appears that no communication was received from the Central Government. Therefore, petitioner filed a representation on 28.12.2010 before the Secretary Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna, vide Annexure-3, for cancellation of his allocation of cadre on the ground that his son was suffering from Acute Renal Failure and needed a kidney transplant for which his wife was a donor who herself was a teacher in the State of Bihar. 2 Along with the representation, petitioner had enclosed necessary certificates in this regard. However, it appears that without considering the same, Home (Special Department) has issued the impugned order dated 13.01.2011, as contained in Annexure-2, directing for relieving the petitioner immediately and for his joining under the Jharkhand Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a proceeding dated 30.11.2002 of the State Advisory Committee, as contained in Annexure-4, and has pointed out that in clause-N sub-clause IV of paragraph 16 the employees who themselves or their family suffered from kidney ailment and required transplantation may be exempted from being transferred to the State of Jharkhand. He submits that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by this clause and, therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the representation of the petitioner in that light which they have not done. It appears to this Court that in 3 terms of the said decision of the State Advisory Committee, as contained in clause-N of paragraph 16, the representation of the petitioner should have been considered by the respondents before issuing any orders for relieving of the petitioner and for his joining under the Jharkhand Government. In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-3, and its all supporting documents and certificates as may have been enclosed with it and consider any further document which the petitioner may produce along with a copy of this order and then only pass orders afresh in the matter. Till such consideration is made and fresh orders are passed by the respondents, the impugned order (Annexure-2) shall not be given effect to by the respondents. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)