In a writ petition challenging a transfer order against a government official nearing superannuation, the Court held that it is not expedient to uproot the petitioner. Consequently, the transfer order was quashed and the petition was allowed. The decision was delivered by an oral order.
The impugned transfer order dated 28.07.2008 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.17212 of 2008.doc
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17212 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2010
Surjit Singh
. . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
CWP No.17212 of 2008.doc
I am of the considered view that it is not desirable or expedient to uproot him from the present place of posting.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
01.02.2010
vishal shonkar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer order issued to a government employee who is due to retire should be set aside to avoid uprooting him.
Whether the petitioner deserves to be allowed to continue in his present place of posting until his superannuation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surjit Singh
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
