- (1.) The present Rule was issued on 9.9.81 and an interim order was made for maintaining status quo as on that date with regard to die petitioner's service pending disposal of the rule. The petitioner prayed for:- To issue a Rule on the Respondents to show cause why they should not be held guilty of Civil Contempt and dealt with accordingly and after hearing the parties, if necessary make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper.
(2.) As suggested and agreed by the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondents the matter has been taken for final disposal. The learned Advocate for the respondents, in his usual fairness has produced all the records maintained by the respondent authority in relating to this case for necessary perusal by this Court for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. An application for contempt has also been filed arising out of C. R. No. 12472 (W) of 1981.
(3.) The petitioner's grievance is that he is a permanent Class 111 employee employed for operating Pump under the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer(G), Kharagpur. The said officer is respondent No. 6 in the Rule. By an order dated 4th of May, 1981, the petitioner was directed to be transferred to Baripada on administrative ground. Such order has been claimed to be mala fide, motivated and made out of grudge against the petitioner. He has given series of events prior to the order of transfer, and it has stated in the writ petition that since there was a difference between the petitioner and the authorities concerned the impugned order of transfer was made. It is further stated that the aforesaid order of transfer dated 4th of May, 1981 was neither served upon the petitioner nor it was communicated to him. The petitioner has also challenged the order of release from duty and to be reported at Balaso-re on a given date. The petitioner never refused to accept any order as a Merged by the respondents but three letters which had nothing to do with Hie order of transfer were handed over to the petitioner on 5th of May, 19-31. The petitioner, however, made a representation to the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (G), respondent No. 6, and he had alleged that although he was asked to go on transfer to Baripada but no reason was given for such alleged transfer. The petitioner has all along claimed that no order of transfer was either shown to the petitioner nor communicated to him.;