WP(C) 557/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioner who at the time of the institution of the proceedings was an Uppe r Division Assistant in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territor ial), Assam has laid successive challenges to the rejection of his administrativ e department’s recommendation for creation of a post of Law Officer to accommoda te him and the order dated 03.03.2005 of the Principal, Chief Conservator of For ests transferring him to the establishment of the Chief Conservator of Forests ( Social Forestry), Assam, Guwahati. In view of the interim order dated 23.03.200 5 passed in WP(C) No.1857/2005 suspending his transfer, the petitioner ad on dat e, continues in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests(Territorial), Ass am. I have heard Mr. K.H. Chaudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the Govt. of Assam. There is no representation on behalf of the other official respondents. The facts constituting the background have to be traced back to the year 1973 wh en the petitioner joined as Typist in the Forest Department and was posted in th e office of the Conservator of Forests, Guwahati. He was promoted to the post o f UDA in the year 1988. Subsequent thereto, he obtained the LL.M. Degree from t he Gauhati University with special paper on the subject Crimes relating to Ecol ogical imbalance. On 29.05.1989, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Assam having submitted a scheme called Intensification of Management which contemplated a legal cell to be headed by a Law Officer it was placed with the Finance Departme nt of the State for its approval/concurrence. Thereafter on a representation submitted by the petitioner in the above state-of -affairs, the concerned authorities of his department following the approval of the departmental Minister as claimed by him, recommended re-designation of the p ost held by him as Law Officer, so as to enable him to appropriately look after the legal matters. Accordingly, the Chief Conservator of Forests(Territorial), Assam re-designated the post of UDA held by the petitioner as that of Law Offic er. Though, parallely the process for a creation of a post of Law Officer to a ccommodate the petitioner continued, the Finance Department maintained a sedate approach. It was in such a situation that challenging the decision of the Finan ce Department as contained in its note dated 27.06.2003 rejecting the proposal, the petitioner instituted WP(C) No.557/2005. As mentioned hereinabove, on being transferred from the office of the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests to the establishment of the Chief Conservator of F orests (Social Forestry) Assam, by the order dated 03.03.2005 he being aggrieved , registered a challenge thereto in WP(C) No.1857/2005. However, on the strength of the interim order the petitioner has continued, as on date in the establishm ent of the Chief Conservator of Forest(Territorial), Assam, Guwahati. The Finance Department in its affidavit has sought to justify its stand on two c ounts, namely- (1) the proposal for creation of a post of Law Officer would be u nsustainable in the face of the Government’s decision to cut down administrative expenditure on salary wages etc. and (2) there being a full fledged department in the State Government to render advise in legal matters neither the creation of a post of Law Officer in the Forest Department separately, nor re-designatio n of the post of Upper Division Assistant held by the petitioner as such is warr anted. While reiterating and reaffirming the averments made in the writ petition, the p etitioner in his affidavit-in-reply in particular has emphasized on the existenc e of a post of Law Officer in several departments endeavouring thereby to counte r the plea of austerity and superfluity put forward by the Finance Department. The petitioner has questioned the validity of the order of his transfer on the g round that thereby he is sought to be relegated to a post, lower in rank than th at of the Law Officer. The order has been assailed also on the ground of bias. Mr. Choudhury, in course of his arguments has urged that as meanwhile, the petit ioner has been promoted to the next higher post of Superintendent in the normal channel of promotion in the department, the plea of additional financial burden as projected by the Finance Department is non-existent. As the post of the Supe rintendent in the department carries a pay scale higher than that of Assistant C onservator of Forests which, as on date is equivalent to that of the Law Officer , there would be no additional financial implications qua the State if the petit ioner is allowed to be designated as Law Officer while holding substantive post of Superintendent. The learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has urged that he (petitioner) does not insist for any financial benefit, in addition to those rel atable to the post of Superintendent in the department as on date. He has there fore urged that the petitioner be allowed for to be designated as Law Officer ma intaining his progress in the normal avenue of promotion in the department. Vis- à-vis the impugned order of transfer, Mr. Chaudhury, has urged that the petition er having continued in the establishment of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Te rritorial), Guwahati, Assam over the years, the same as on date is liable to b e adjudged non est in law. Mr. Gogoi, in reply has argued that as the creation of a post of Law Officer in the Forest Department per se would have financial implication, the objection rai sed by it as contained in its affidavit is legitimate and valid. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of their pleaded stands, this Court is of the view, having regard to the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner that if, maintaining his advancement in the normal c hannel of promotion in the department he is continued to be designated as Law Of ficer, without any additional financial benefit, the interest of the State Gover nment in any manner would not be adversely affected. As presently, the petition er does not insist for a creation of a post of Law Officer, but for designation as such to be attached to the post which he holds or will be holding till his re tirement. Having regard to the services rendered by him in the capacity of a Law Officer to the benefit of the department as claimed by him, in the estimate of this Court, the arrangement as contemplated above, if ordered to be made would n ot be opposed to the public interest or organizational hierarchy. Apropos the order of transfer, this Court is of the view that with passage of ti me, the same has become stall, as well and ought not directed to be implemented at this distant point of time. In the above premise, this petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Sta te authorities to cause necessary steps to be taken to permit the designation of the petitioner as ’Law Officer’ to be affixed to the designation of the post th at he holds or would be holding in the department till his retirement in service . This designation, it is made clear would be personal to the petitioner and wo uld not accompany the substantive post that he holds or would hold in the depart ment during his service tenure after his retirement. The impugned order of tran sfer dated 03.03.2005 on the consideration as noted hereinabove is set aside. I t would be however open for the said respondents to transfer and post the petiti oner afresh in exigencies of public service. The petitions stand disposed in the above terms. No costs.