Transfer order to lower-level post prompts court to direct review for repatriation.

The petitioner, Dr. Uday Datta Kumar Bose, a Veterinary Doctor drawing a salary at Level-12 challenged an order of transfer issued vide Memo No. 3326 dated 30.06.2025, which transferred him from Patna to the Gaya Forest Division, Gaya, on a post designated at Level-9.

The petitioner contended that there is no post of Level-12 in Gaya Forest Division.

Following the transfer order, the petitioner complied by joining at Gaya Forest Division.

His primary grievance remaining is for repatriation to his parent department because his services as a Veterinary Doctor are not being utilized by the respondents.

The State submitted that the petitioner's services, along with other Veterinary Officers, were transferred to the Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department as per a decision dated 19.05.2025, and posts in the Forest Division are at Level-9.

Whether the transfer order issued vide Memo No. 3326 dated 30.06.2025 was infructuous due to the petitioner's compliance?

Whether the petitioner, a Level-12 Veterinary Doctor, should be repatriated to his parent department when transferred to a Level-9 post in a different department where his services as a Veterinary Doctor are allegedly not being utilized?

The court's decision was based on principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, allowing an aggrieved party to represent their case to the appropriate authority for reconsideration of an administrative decision, particularly regarding conditions of service and potential disparities in post levels.

The court recognized the petitioner's entitlement to draw salary at Level-12, as evidenced by Annexure-P/11, despite being posted to a Level-9 position.

The court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed documents, particularly Annexure-P/11, confirming the petitioner's Level-12 salary.

It noted the State's assertion that the post in the Forest Division is Level-9, creating a discrepancy with the petitioner's pay scale.

Given that the prayer for quashing the transfer order became infructuous due to compliance, the court focused on the petitioner's remaining grievance regarding repatriation.

Recognizing the potential mismatch between the petitioner's pay level and the available post level, the court deemed it appropriate to allow the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the relevant authority.

This approach allows the administrative department to address the specific facts and circumstances of the petitioner's service and determine if repatriation is warranted in accordance with existing laws and policies.

The court held that the petitioner has liberty to file a fresh representation to Respondent No. 2, the Additional Chief Secretary, Animal and Fisheries Resources Department, within 30 days from the date of the order, explaining the facts and circumstances of his case.

Upon receipt of this representation, Respondent No. 2 shall consider it and, if the petitioner's case is found fit for repatriation, appropriate orders shall be passed for his repatriation to his parent department in accordance with law within 60 days thereafter.