The petitioner, working as Temple Artist in a Temple under the management of the fourth respondent, was transferred to the Temple under the control of the second respondent. The transfer is said to have been effected on the ground that on two occasions theft took place in the Temple and that there could have been either complicity or negligence on the part of staff working there. 2. In any event, the grievance of the petitioner is that any employee who has been subjected to transfer has a right to appeal to the fourth respondent, but in the present instance, the authorities concerned have not even served a copy of the order of transfer on the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the usual practice is that any order of transfer would be displayed in the website of W.P.(c) No. 26716 of 2014 2 the fourth respondent Board, but this time even that has not been adhered to. Complaining of depravation of the substantive right to question the order of transfer in a statutory appeal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel apprehends that straight away the authorities may serve the relieving order on him, thereby not providing him any breathing time to lay challenge against the transfer.
4. Though the learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner and has further opposed any relief being granted to the petitioner. He has, however, eventually submitted that the authorities would ensure serving a copy of the order of transfer on the petitioner at the earliest.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent corporation, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to serve a copy of the order of transfer on the petitioner, as W.P.(c) No. 26716 of 2014 3 expeditiously as possible. Since the petitioner has a substantive statutory remedy of appeal against the order of transfer, it may not be proper for the authorities to enforce the order of transfer even before the very order is served on the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondent authorities not to effect the transfer until the order of transfer itself is served on the petitioner.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-