IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15575 of 2008 DR.DHRUB NARAIN SINGH & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 12.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for leave to withdraw this application in so far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned. This application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to him. The petitioner no. 1 seeks quashing of the order dated 8.8.2008 by which he has been allocated the State of Bihar consequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar. The petitioner no. 1 submitted an application for mutual transfer with respondent no. 7.This led to the petitioner being allocated the State of Bihar while the respondent no. 7 has been allocated the State of Jharkhand. The sheet anchor of the argument of the petitioner is that prior to the issuance of the order dated 8.8.2008 he had withdrawn the request for mutual transfer on 29.2.2008. He relies upon a judgement of this Court reported in 2007 ( 4 ) PLJR 359 (Dhrub Kumar Roy & ors. Vs. The Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. & ors.) in support of his submission that he could withdraw the offer for mutual transfer before acceptance. It is additionally urged that the pay scale of the post that the petitioner held in the State of Jharkhand has been upgraded and by virtue of the present order of transfer he shall have to suffer financially on that account. The judgement in the case of Dhrub Kumar Roy (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner deals with the issuance of resignation. The law stands well settled that an order of resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance and communication. The present is not a case with regard to resignation. The modalities framed by the Government of India for allocation of cadre consequent to the re-organization of the State of Bihar incorporate the modalities for mutual transfer. It requires a joint application for exchanged transfer and which admittedly was done by the petitioner along with the respondent no. 7. This Court finds it difficult to accept the claim for unilateral revocation of request for mutual transfer. If the request for transfer be mutual, the request of revocation thereof has .also to be mutual in order to furnish a cause of action. That is admittedly not the case here. To that extent this Court finds no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. However, if the pay scale of the post which the petitioner held in the State of Jharkhand has been upgraded, and he is aggrieved by his consequent pay scale in the State of Bihar, it is always open to the petitioner to represent his case by drawing the attention of the authorities to the relevant provisions of law for protection of his pay scale and on which representation the respondent authorities of the State of Bihar shall be obliged to take appropriate decision by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)