MC 2832/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. B.J. Ghosh, le arned State Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2, Mr. A. Das, learned Standing Counse l, Bodoland Territorial Council(hereinafter for short referred to as the Council ) for Respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5 and Mr. R.B. Deka, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. The facts, in brief, are that while the petitioner was serving as a Typist in th e Borobazar T.D. Block under the Council, he was transferred to the Kokrajhar De velopment Block against an existing vacancy. By a separate notification of the same date, the Respondent No.6 was posted in his place at Borobazar T.D. Block. The petitioner being aggrieved by his transfer, instituted the abovementioned wr it proceeding questioning, inter alia the authority of the Council to do so. This Court by order dated 02.03.2009 in the interim stayed the operation of the impugned notification. The interim order, though extended thereafter, was event ually on the application filed by the Respondent No.6(registered as Misc. Case N o.758/2009), recalled by the order dated 08.04.2009. To put if differently, afte r 08.04.2009, there is no restraint on the implementation of the impugned notifi cation of transfer of the petitioner. It is now contended by Mr. Sharma on behalf of the petitioner that in the inter im, he(petitioner) has been engaged by the Council authorities at Borobazar T.D . Block amongst others in election works and thus he had been rendering continuo us services thereat. On instructions, the learned counsel submits that the peti tioner is now willing to abide by the impugned notification of transfer and ther efore appropriate directions ought to be issued to the concerned authorities of the Council to permit him to do so. Mr. Sharma, further submits that as the petitioner has been rendering his servic es all throughout the intervening period, the same ought to be regularized and h e ought to be paid his salary and other services dues to which he is entitled in law. Mr. Das, has responded by contending that while the Council may not have any obj ection to permit the writ petitioner to join his place of posting in terms of th e impugned notification of transfer, his claim of having rendered his services a nd service entitlements therefor would be subject to necessary scrutiny, in acco rdance with law. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 however, has not offered any comment . Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts and the documents available on record, the proceedings as above sta nd closed by leaving the Council at liberty to issue appropriate directions to t he petitioner so as to enable him to join at Kokrajhar Development Block pursuan t to the impugned notification dated 30.12.2008. So far as the petitioner’s clai m for salary and other dues is concerned, the concerned authority of the Council would examine the same and do the needful bearing, particularly in mind his ass ertion of having been engaged in election works in between. No costs.