1 S/39. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4971/2007. Babu Lal Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Date of Order :: 9th October 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. K.S. Gill, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave,Dy.G.A. ] Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta ], for the respondents. ..... BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner working as Lower Division Clerk with Municipal Board, Bilara with the following prayers:- “(a) The order dated 25-09-2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondents may kindly be directed not to implemented the transfer order dt. 25-09-2004 after so delayed period. (c) That without prejudice to above, alternatively respondents may kindly be directed not to be implement the order dt. 25-09-2004 till the finalizing of the proceedings in pursuant to the order/Note dt. 07-10-2004, Chairman, Municipality, Bilara. (d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which is found just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (e) the costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” The prayers aforesaid have been made by the petitioner stating the backdrop of facts in the writ petition in the manner 2 that he was posted with Municipal Board, Bilara since 10.07.1996; that he came to know about likelihood of his being relieved in pursuance of an order dated 25.09.2004 (Annexure-1) whereby he was ordered to be transferred from Bilara to Jaitaran though, according to the petitioner, this order of transfer was never communicated to him and thus, he obtained the copy of the order dated 25.09.2004 from his own sources. The petitioner has averred that when he was ordered to be transferred from Bilara to Jaitaran in the year 2004, the Chairman of the Municipal Board on 07.10.2004 directed that the petitioner may not be relieved in pursuance of such transfer order and a communication be sent to the D.L.B. to cancel the same; that the petitioner inquired about the facts of the case and came to know that the matter was pending consideration before the respondents and for this reason, he was not relieved for last 2 years and 11 months. The petitioner has also averred that there are five posts of LDC in the Municipality out of which, one post is lying vacant and the transfer order shows that no person has been posted vice the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that these days the respondents were under political pressure to relieve him without considering the fact that the matter is under consideration for cancellation of the transfer order itself. This Court considered the writ petition on 17.08.2007 3 and while issuing notices for final disposal, passed the following order,- “Heard. Issue notice for final disposal returnable in four weeks. Notice and PF be filed in two sets by tomorrow. Upon filing the same, one set be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner for service upon the respondents by registered post. In case, the petitioner is sought to be relieved in pursuance of the transfer order dated 25.9.2004, he shall not be transferred or relieved in pursuance of the transfer order dated 25.9.2004.” A reply has been submitted on behalf of the non- petitioners Nos. 3 and 4. The answering respondents have urged that the petition is grossly belated one and seems to be infructuous for the reason that the transfer order made in relation to the petitioner was stayed by the then Chairman of the Municipal Board. The answering respondents have alleged that the petitioner was working in establishment section, and he was also looking after the work of inward and outward and, according the answering respondents, it was wrong to contend that the petitioner was not in know of the transfer order. It has also been contended that the Chairman did not issue any letter to the Director, Local Self Department; and that the Chairman had no authority to interfere in the administrative work of the Municipal Board. The said respondents have raised the question as to how the Chairman proceeded to manipulate 4 and to interfere in the administrative work of the Municipal Board and as to how he kept the Government Order Annexure-1 pending without bringing it on the record of the Municipal Board? The averments regarding political pressure have also been denied while raising the objection about want of particulars. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have, of course, not filed any reply to this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was required to approach this Court when he came to know that the order of transfer issued on 25.09.2004 was sought to be implemented and he was sought to be relieved in pursuance thereof. Learned counsel further submited that when the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have admitted that the transfer order was stayed by the Chairman, this writ petition may be disposed of in the light of and in terms of such reply averments. Having examined the record of the case and having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions, this Court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition remains totally bereft of substance and deserves to be dismissed. It is noticed that as back as on 25.09.2004, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Municipal Board, Bilara to Jaitaran; and it is an admitted fact that the said transfer order has yet not been implemented. The respondents 5 Nos. 3 and 4 have proceeded to question the authority of the Chairman to make any such order preventing implementation of the transfer order but it appears that neither the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ever asked the Municipal Board as to why the said order of transfer dated 25.09.2004 was kept in abeyance and was not implemented nor the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 took relevant steps to implement the same. Be that as it may, for such acts and omissions on the part of the respondents, there appears no reason or cause whereby the petitioner would be entitled to maintain this writ petition challenging the said transfer order. For suggesting a cause of action, the petitioner has made vague averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition which read, verbatim, as under:- “4. That the petitioner now the days came to know that he is going to releave from his service in pursuant an order dated 25-09-2004; whereby he was order to be transferred from Bilara to Jaitaran…” The petition is vague and uncertain on the fundamental fact as to how and from what source the petitioner came to know about implementation of the order dated 25.09.2004 at the time of filing this writ petition on 14.08.2007? It is rather unfortunate that an order of transfer made three years back has not been implemented yet and now the petitioner seeks to suggest that he should not to be relieved in pursuance thereof. This Court finds no reason to prohibit the answering 6 respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from proceeding strictly in accordance with law; and to relieve the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 25.09.2004. The respondents are also at liberty to issue a fresh transfer order in relation to the petitioner, if considered necessary, of course, in accordance with law. There appears no cause or reason to issue any writ, order, or direction in this case in favour of the petitioner. The suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the answering respondents have proceeded to make any admission of fact, does not appear correct. The reply to the writ petition as submitted on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 is not of admission of any fact; except that the answering respondents have stated it as a matter of fact that the Chairman proceeded to avoid implementation of the said transfer order. Rather, the said respondents have questioned the very authority of the Chairman to do so. In any case, noticing all the facts and the surrounding circumstances, this court finds no cause, reason or justification to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 17.08.2007 stands vacated. The stay application also stands rejected. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/