Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) BY the impugned notification dated 03rd March 2014 bearing memo no. 594, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Junior Agriculture Information Officer in the office of Joint Director, Agriculture, Santhal Paragana Range, Dumka to the office of Block Agriculture Officer, Sarath, Deoghar. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is going to superannuate on 30th September 2014 itself and for which, the Joint Director, Agriculture, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka had himself issued a letter on 04th June 2014 asking him to complete all necessary formalities for processing of his claim for post retirement benefits in view of his impending retirement on attaining 60 years of age. It is submitted that because of model code of conduct coming into force immediately after issuance of the impugned notification, the same was not given effect to and the petitioner as well as the office of the Joint Director, Agriculture came to know of the same only on 04th June 2014. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioner may not be disturbed from the present place of posting for few months of his service and such displacement would adversely affect him, as also the processing of his claim for post retirement dues and other service dues which are being undertaken at the present place of posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a circular dated 18th October 1993 of Agriculture Department. In clause -4 thereof, a provision has been made to permit the employees in the last years of their service to make representation for their posting at a particular place and such representation could be considered for posting at a particular place, though not for a particular posting. The resolution of 25th October 1980 and clause -3 thereof also indicates that in the last year of service of a Government servant, his request of transfer and posting at the place of his choice should be considered. The petitioner is said to have made representation vide annexure -3 before the Director, Agriculture for sympathetic consideration of his case and for stay of the impugned order of transfer. Therefore, after failing to elicit any response from the respondent, the petitioner had approached this court for the instant relief.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent State however objects to the said prayer and submits that the impugned order of transfer has been made by the competent authority and it is a bulk transfer and there is no infirmity in the impugned notification either for interference by this Court.;