Pramod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned Advocate for the State.

The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order contained in memo number 2026-298 (4) dated 14.07.2026, issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, to the extent it relates to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from his present posting at Anchal Sampatchak, District-Patna to District-Gopalganj, on the same and similar post of Revenue/Rajaswa Karamchari.

The challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order is primarily in two fold. Firstly, that the petitioner is going to superannuate on 31.07.2027, and as such, at the fag end of his service, he ought not to be disturbed and transferred to a distant place without seeking his option. Referring to the letter dated 08.10.2024 issued by the government, it is submitted that the same clearly suggests that the employees who are in the last year of their retirement, in their cases, at the time of transfer, the government should take a sympathetic consideration and they ought to be transferred in their home district, if possible.

The second limb of challenge is that while the petitioner was engaged in census duty, his service ought not to be interfered with by transferring from one place to different place. Nonetheless, by the impugned order, he has been transferred along with others on different distant places. In identical situation, other persons aggrieved with the similar order have approached this Court in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026, wherein the Court vide its order dated 24.07.2026 has been pleased to stay the Memo No. 298 (4) dated 14.07.2026 and directed the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Cadre Controlling Authority, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, to take decision on the representation of the petitioners within 90 days from the communication of the order. It was made clear that till further decision upon the representation of the petitioners, the impugned order shall remain stayed. It is further contended that during the pendency of the writ petition, since the relieving order has been issued, the petitioner left with no option but on protest submitted his joining, which is also questioned before this Court.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that to apprise this Court with regard to the present position, a short adjournment is required.

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that identically situated persons have approached this Court, wherein this Court had considered the matter and disposed of the same vide order dated 24.07.2026 with a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the representation on various grounds, including the grounds raised hereinabove.

In view, thereof, this Court also deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to approach before the respondent no. 3 by filing a detailed representation along with the co-ordinate Bench decision as referred hereinabove, who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner, especially the petitioner is at the fag end of his service; besides, he was engaged in census duty, and his case also stand at parity with those of the petitioners of CWJC No. 10922 of 2026, preferably within a period of four weeks from today.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off.