Disposed

Surinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Feb 2010CWP/16747/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Transport Department clerk, challenged her transfer from Ludhiana to Barnala. The Court held that while couples should ideally be posted together, such posting is not an absolute right. The petitioner was directed to complete her tenure at Ludhiana as a couple case until April 2010.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to allow the petitioner to complete her three years tenure at Ludhiana commencing from 30.8.2007.

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.16747 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 02, 2010.

¶3

Surinder Kaur ..... Petitioner

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶8

Present : Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab.

¶9

-.-

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved at her transfer from Ludhiana to Barnala. She is working as a Clerk in the office of the Transport Department, Punjab. Her case is that contrary to the Government Policy that a couple case should be posted together, she has been transferred from Ludhiana whereas several other employees posted at Ludhiana for the last 20 years or so, have been retained.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply-affidavit.

¶17

C.W.P.No .16747 of 2008 (O&M) 2

¶18

It is averred that the petitioner has remained posted at Ludhiana during the following tenure:

¶19

From 29.7.1991 to 7.6.2000 : 8 years 11 months From 24.10.2000 to 23.5.2002 : 1 year 07 months From 28.6.2002 to 11.8.2004 : 2 years 2 months From 6.7.2005 to 4.7.2007 : 2 years From 30.8.2007 to date : 1 year 2 months.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the Government Policy and the guidelines. Though it is always desirable that a couple case should be posted together but it does not mean that the petitioner cannot be transferred outside Ludhiana in any circumstance nor she can claim it as a matter of right to remain posted at Ludhiana, especially when her husband is posted in Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and holds a non-transferable post.

¶21

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the academic session would be over somewhere in April, 2010, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete her three years tenure at Ludhiana, commencing from 30.8.2007, and thereafter, utilize her services wherever it is so required in the administrative interest.

Disposed of.

Dasti.

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

02-02-2010

Mohinder

Surinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jaskamaldeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Baldev Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santosh Saini Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bakhshish Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurjit Singh Randhawa Vs State of Punjab and Ors.