IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1884 of 2009 AHMAD HUSSAIN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar , Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar , Patna. 3. Keshaw Sahini, Estimating Officer, Rural Works Department, Araria, P.S. and District- Araria. ……… Respondents. ----------- 3/ 05/03/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The writ application was filed after serving two copies of the writ application on the learned counsel for the State in accordance with the High Court Rules. The purpose of the latter copy was to facilitate the respondents to give instructions to their counsel at an early date. Despite having been granted adjournment for the purpose on 6.2.2009, learned counsel for the State today again prays for an adjournment. Transfer matters have their own urgency and, therefore, this Court is not persuaded to accept the prayer for adjournment for reason of the nature of the order to be passed. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 30.6.2008 from Patna to Siwan. It is his specific pleading that in pursuance of the same he joined at 2 Siwan on 2.8.2008. The charge was also given to him on 18.8.2008. Subsequently, in pursuance of certain Government instruction dated 1.10.2008, a fresh notification was issued on 3.10.2008 modifying the earlier notification of transfer dated 30.6.2008 by which the respondent No.3 was sought to be posted at Siwan when no orders for the posting of the petitioner was passed afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.16382/08 holding that once an order of transfer was issued and acted upon, the order of transfer was a spent force, redundant and no more in existence for its cancellation/modification. All that could be done was, passing of fresh orders in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the State points out that private respondent No.3 may be required to be noticed and heard in the matter. Once this Court has pronounced on an issue in law, all those are covered by this issue are required to be accorded similar treatment by the State without requiring them to obtain individual orders from this Court. Of course, if there be any distinction, the State has the full liberty not to accord similar treatment after recording its reasons for the same. The duty of the State is to assist in adjudication and not to indulge in litigation. 3 The impugned order, looked at from either point of view, as a modification of a transfer order no more in existence or an order which does not provide for any fresh place of posting for the petitioner, is not sustainable in law from either point of view. In view of the conclusion of this Court, the order dated 3.10.2008 quite obviously does not affect the petitioner in any manner and he continues to remain at Siwan. What is required to be done with respondent No.3 is for the official respondents to decide and not for this Court. Let such decision be taken by the respondents after hearing all concerned and upon perusal of necessary materials, in accordance with law. The application stands allowed. KC (Navin Sinha, J.)