Partly allowed

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2011CWP/12608/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a veterinary inspector nearing retirement with poor eyesight, challenged his transfer from Moonak to Phulad. The court directed respondent authorities to consider retaining him at Moonak or posting him at a better place within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to retain him at previous station till retirement or appoint at a better place.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab etc. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civl Writ Petition No.12608 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 20, 2011.

Jaswant Singh

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶7

..... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶9

Present : Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab,

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶15

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 to 3 only.

¶16

Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on their behalf.

¶17

In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, neither there is any need to seek counter reply from respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor any necessity to serve notice upon respondent No.3 at this stage.

¶18

The petitioner is working as a Veterinary Inspector in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Punjab and due for retirement in April, 2012. It appears that he is also suffering with some disability due to which he has poor eye sight. The petitioner has now been transferred from Civil

¶19

CWP No.12608 of 2011 [2]

¶20

Veterinary Hospital, Moonak to Civil Veterinary Dispensary, Phulad, District Sangrur vide order dated 29.6.2011 (Annexure P-3). He submits that in view of the guidelines of the State Government not to transfer an employee nearing retirement and the fact that the petitioner has a poor eye sight which causes difficulty in travelling every day, he ought not to have been transferred from Moonak. The petitioner has already represented the authorities in this regard vide representation dated 5.7.2011 (Annexure P-4) but no action appears to have been taken so far.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of his transfer requires immediate and sympathetic consideration by the authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's request to retain him at Moonak till his retirement or to post him at any better place. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶22

Dasti.

¶23

July 20, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab etc.

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

Achhar Singh Toor Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Girdhari Lal Bansal Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sarvjit Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.

Taranjit Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs the Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.