Competent authority directed to reconsider transfer of employee nearing superannuation and engaged in census duty.

The petitioner, a Revenue Employee posted at Anchal Sampatchak, Patna, challenged Memo No. 2026-298(4) dated 14 July 2026 issued by the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, transferring him from Sampatchak, Patna to Gopalganj on the same post.

The petitioner contended that he was due to superannuate on 31 July 2027 and was therefore at the fag end of his service; consequently, his transfer to a distant district without seeking his option was alleged to be contrary to the Government letter dated 8 October 2024, which contemplated sympathetic consideration for employees nearing retirement.

He further asserted that he was engaged in census duty and that his transfer during such assignment ought not to have been made.

The petitioner also stated that, after issuance of the relieving order, he submitted his joining under protest and questioned the same before the Court.

He relied on the order dated 24 July 2026 passed in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026, concerning similarly situated employees, whereby the transfer memorandum was stayed and the authorities were directed to decide the petitioners’ representations within 90 days.

The State sought a short adjournment to place the current position before the Court.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer to a distant district, despite his impending superannuation and the Government’s policy of sympathetic consideration for employees nearing retirement, required reconsideration by the competent authority

Whether the petitioner’s transfer during his engagement in census duty warranted interference or reconsideration, particularly in view of the relief granted to similarly situated employees in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026

Whether the petitioner’s case was required to be considered at parity with the petitioners in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026

The Court applied the administrative-law principle that an employee’s transfer, particularly when challenged on grounds of an applicable government policy, impending retirement, special duty assignment, or discriminatory treatment, may be placed before the competent authority for reasoned reconsideration.

The Court took note of the Government letter dated 8 October 2024, which required sympathetic consideration of employees in the last year of service and contemplated posting them in their home district, if possible.

It also relied on the principle of parity and consistency in administrative decision-making, as reflected in the coordinate Bench’s order dated 24 July 2026 in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026, where similarly situated employees were permitted to submit representations and the transfer order was stayed pending a decision on those representations.

No statutory provision or binding precedent was expressly discussed in the judgment.

The Court did not finally adjudicate the legality of the transfer or grant substantive relief against the transfer order.

Instead, it considered that the petitioner’s grounds—his impending superannuation, the Government’s 8 October 2024 communication, his engagement in census duty, and his alleged similarity with the petitioners in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026—were matters requiring examination by the competent administrative authority.

Since the coordinate Bench had already directed consideration of representations in an identical context, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt a similar course in the petitioner’s case, rather than decide the disputed administrative questions in the writ petition itself.

The petitioner was therefore directed to submit a detailed representation to Respondent No. 3 along with a copy of the coordinate Bench’s decision, and Respondent No. 3 was directed to examine his grievance, particularly in light of his nearing retirement, census duty, and claimed parity with the earlier petitioners.

The petitioner was directed to approach the Additional Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Respondent No. 3, by filing a detailed representation along with the order in CWJC No. 10922 of 2026, preferably within four weeks from the date of judgment.

The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner’s grievances, specifically his impending superannuation, engagement in census duty, and parity with similarly situated employees.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of on 6 August 2026.