NON REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.3  

 IN   CIVIL APPEAL NO.7570 OF 2009

(Arising out of SLP©No.15067 of 2009)

Executive Director, West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd.       …Appellant

Versus

Sri Ardhendu Sekhar Bala & Ors.  …Respondents

O R D E R

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. The Executive Director (FM & HR) West Bengal Power  

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  

1

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.  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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]

5