W.B. Power Development Corpn. Ltd. vs Ardhendu Sekhar Bala

Development Corporation Ltd. is the appellant before

us. A school was set up by the appellant in the name

of "Kolaghat Thermal Power Plant High School" (in

short `the School') mainly for the wards of the

employees of Kolaghat Thermal Power Station. The 2

respondent No.1 Shri Ardhendu Sekhar Bala was

appointed as Assistant Teacher of Bengali in the

aforesaid School. Without going into the details, on or

about 26th of February, 2009, nine employees of the

West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd.

including the respondent No. 1 were transferred from

one Power Project to different Power Projects. The

respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the order of transfer

and for that reason, he had challenged the order of

transfer by way of a writ petition filed before the High

Court of Calcutta on 24th of March, 2009. By a final

order dated 30th of March, 2009, a learned Judge of

the High Court rejected the writ application holding

that an order of transfer could very well be made if the

exigencies of the services so required.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed an appeal on

16th of April, 2009 before the Division Bench of the

High Court which is still pending. It may be kept on

record that before filing of the appeal i.e. on 16th of

April, 2009, the respondent No.1 was released w.e.f. 3

30th of March, 2009. It is not disputed that another

teacher Shri Kamal Das, after the release of the

respondent No.1 from the School as Assistant Teacher,

joined the said school in place of Ardhendu Sekhar

Bala, the respondent No.1 herein. After the joining of

Shri Kamal Das, the Division Bench by the impugned

order dated 15th of June, 2009 had stayed the

operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge

passed on 30th of March, 2009 rejecting the application

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the

facts and circumstances of the present case,

particularly the fact that Shri Kamal Das has already

joined the post in the said School in place of

respondent No.1, there was no necessity at that stage

for the Division Bench to grant stay of the order of the

learned Single Judge. Although the Division Bench by

the impugned order had passed an interim order

pending the disposal of the appeal, we are of the view

that in view of the fact that Shri Kamal Das has

already joined the post where the respondent No.1 was 4

working at the time of his transfer, there was no need

to stay the operation of the impugned order of the

learned Single Judge at that stage. Mr.Mukherjee,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has

drawn our attention to the fact that the respondent

No.1 is not in a position to join the post where he has

been transferred by the order of transfer as it appears

that a lady teacher of another school has been

transferred in the same post and she has joined the

same. If such be the position, it would be the appellant

to take steps to allow the respondent No.1 to join the

post where he was transferred and also to release the

lady teacher from the said post and place her in some

other suitable place. We, however, make it clear that

the joining of the respondent No. 1 in the transferred

post shall abide by the result of the pending writ

appeal.

4. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set

aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated

above. However, we request the Division Bench of the 5

High Court to decide the pending appeal within three

months from the date of supply of a copy of this order

to it positively. It may be stated that the appeal shall

be decided without granting any unnecessary

adjournment to either of the parties. In view of the

order passed in the appeal itself, the interlocutory

applications such as the application for modification

or clarification of our order dated 21st of July, 2009

have become infructuous and are also accordingly

disposed of.

5. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the

merits of the writ appeal which shall be decided by the

High Court in accordance with law.

..............................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ..............................J. November 13, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]