IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7387 of 2011 NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD, Son of Sri Bali Ram Prasad, resident of Slum Qr. No. 194, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Patna-20, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through the Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension, Personnel and Training Department, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Secretary (S.R.) to Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The State Advisory Committee, Sinchai Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary. 4. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 7. The Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 8. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 9. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary. ..... Respondents. For the Petitioner: M/s. Chandra Sekhar, Sr. Advocate, Dhananjay Kumar and D.K. Paswan, Advocates. For the State of Jharkhand: Mr. N.N. Ojha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, A.C. to G.P.25. For the Union of India : Mr. Sahvind Kumar Sharma (CG). ----------- 2. 10.05.2011. As per the case of the petitioner, in response to the offer extended by the Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar through its letter No.10458 dated 17.12.2009, petitioner submitted his representation for retaining his services in Bihar State, which was duly forwarded by Annexure-5. It is submitted that no final orders have been passed on the same so far. However, learned Senior counsel 2 for the petitioner submits that under the general orders of the Department dated 3.2.2011 contained in Annexure-6, the petitioner is under threat of being relieved for reporting duties under the Jharkhand State. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand submits that he has no instructions that any consent has been requested or granted by the State of Jharkhand on the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar submits that the general orders as contained in Annexure-6 may be treated as disposal of the representation of the petitioner. However, this Court considers it an appropriate conduct for the respondents that, if the petitioner had filed representation in the Performa in response to the said letter of the Department dated 17.12.2009, same should have been considered and disposed of and communicated to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with direction to the concerned authority of the State of Bihar to consider the representation of the petitioner, 3 filed in Performa in response to the said letter dated 17.12.2009, if not already considered and disposed of either way, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner will be at liberty to apply before the concerned respondent, along with a copy of this order, for any interim order. If representation has not been disposed of by the respondents till today, the authority will be at liberty to consider the said application for an interim order. Ibrar/- ( J. N. Singh, J.)