Bikash Chandra Roy v. Union Of India And ORS.

ML 29 02.12.2025 Ct. No. 2 adeb W.P.A. 9651 of 2025 Bikash Chandra Roy Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Omkar Nath Tiwari ...for the Petitioner Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty Mr. Uttam Basak ...for the UOI

1. In the writ petition, transfer order of the petitioner dated 4th April, 2025 is challenged whereby petitioner was transferred to SECL Bilaspur.

2. However, during course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned advocate representing Union of India that petitioner has joined the post where he was transferred on 7th July, 2025.

3. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of respondents that writ petition has become infructuous since transfer has already been given effect to.

4. Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits in Clause 6 of the transfer order dated 4th April, 2025 there was a provision to

make a representation there-against and accordingly a representation was made on 7th April, 2025 against the aforesaid transfer order.

5. Petitioner prays for consideration of such representation dated 7th April, 2025.

6. In reply it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that petitioner's representation dated 7th April, 2025 was turned down vide communication dated 16th July, 2025 and reasons for not accepting the prayer of the petitioner as made vide representation dated 7th April, 2025 were communicated by a subsequent letter dated 30th July, 2025 issued by Commandant/AIG Legal, FHQ New Delhi, Central Industrial Security Force.

7. Copies of communications dated 16th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025 are filed before this Court and same are taken on record.

8. It is found that though petitioner made representation within time against transfer order dated 4th April, 2025 but same was rejected vide two communications dated 16th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025. No relief can be granted in this writ petition. Moreover, it needs to be recorded that in this writ petition

those two communications dated 16th July, 2025 and 30th July, 2025 are not questioned.

9. Writ petition stands dismissed.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)