The main legal point established in the judgment is that even a void order needs to be set aside by a superior authority or court, and failure to challenge a transfer order does not relieve the employee from the responsibility of obeying the order.

As per Hon'ble Shri S.K. Agnihotri, J. :-

1. The petitioners, who were employed as Upper Division Clerk, Lower Division Clerk and Helper, respectively" with the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC), were posted at Bilaspur, Within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh. Vide order dated 13.06.2001 (Annexure P/6) issue by the Financial Advisor, M.P.S.R.T.C. Head Quarter Habeebgunj, Bhopal the petitioners No.1 was transferred from Bilaspur to Jagdalpur and petitioner NO.2 was transferred from Bilaspur to Rajnandgaon. The petitioner No.3 was transferred from Bilaspur to Jagdalpur vide order dated 12.06.2001 (Annexure PI7) passed by the Assistant Labour and Personnel Officer, M.P.S.R.T.C. Head Quarter, Habeebgunj, Bhopal. The petitioners did not comply with the aforesaid transfer orders on the ground that the petitioners were not paid any transfer allowance, S.A. and arrears of salary. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed a writ petition being W.P.No. 1226/ 200 I for the following reliefs.

"(i) The petitioners pray that the Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to direct the respondents to take action against the delinquent employees or to accord permission to the petitioners, to take legal action against them, so that the law may be vindicated and the exploitation of the people, at the hands of unscrupulous employees is put to a halt. .

(ii) Any other relief fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted."

2. That Writ Petition No. 1226/2001 was dismissed on 30.10.2001 for non-prosecution. The petition was thereafter restored vide order 'dated 05.04.2003 passed in M.C.C. No. 45/2002. Thereafter, the petition was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 3.3.2006. The petitioners did not get the earlier petition being W.P. No. 1226/2001 restored as yet within limitation period and the same attained finality.

3. The Petitioners have filed this petition on 23.04.2003 for the following reliefs -

"(i) That the Hon 'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent and 2 to release wages of the petitioners with interest as detailed in paras 5.2 and 5.4 of the petition by issuing a writ of mandamus.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemed fit in the interest of justice."

By amendment order dated 23.01.2006 the prayer clause 7(iii). seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.09.2001 (Annexure R-2/I), was added to the petition, as under:

"7(iii) That the Hon 'ble Court be pleased to quash Annexure R-2/ I as being illegal, malicious, without authority and contemptuous by issuing a writ of Certiorari with all consequential benefits."

4. The petitioners have not challenged the validity of the transfer orders dated 13.06.2001 (Annexure P/6) and 12.06.2001 (Annexure PI7). However, in the rejoinder the petitioners have questioned the validity of the said transfer orders in the averments without seeking any relief against the said transfer orders, in the prayer clause.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the transfer orders were passed by incompetent officers, thus the same were void and non-est. It is, therefore not necessary to impugn the same. It was further submitted that the petitioners were not obliged to comply with the void and non-est order by going to Jagdalpur and Rajnandgaon. respectively, and joining therein. The petitioners have all the time reported at Bilaspur and the petitioners were restrained from working in the Bilaspur depot by the Respondent NO.2.

6. The petitioners further submitted that according to the notification dated 27.12.2002 (Annexure R-2/2) passed by the Ministry of Road, Transport and High Way, Govt. of India, the petitioners became employee of the respondent No.3 on dissolution of the original M.P.S.R.T.C. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to entire wages with interest w.e.f. the date of th