Allowed

Major Singh v. Pspc Ltd. and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Apr 2011CWP/21738/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Senior Executive Engineer, challenged his transfer from Mohali to Ropar under Article 226, alleging violation of service policy. The court held that interference is not expedient absent strong reasons and directed the authority to consider the petitioner's request sympathetically within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation; competent authority directed to consider it sympathetically and dispose within two months.

Major Singh Vs Pspc Ltd. and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.21738 of 2010.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.21738 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2011

Eng.Major Singh

VS.

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Present: Mr. RK Handa, Advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Mr. PS Thiara, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4

¶19

¶20

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶21

(1). The petitioner is working as a Senior Executive Engineer in the erstwhile Electricity Board now known as ‘Powercom’. He seeks quashing of the order dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure P4) transferring him from Mohali to Ropar. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been subjected to repeated transfers allegedly in violation of the Board’s transfer policy (Annexure P3).

¶22

(2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that the petitioner was transferred from Lalru to Mohali in public interest and it is for the same reason that he has now been transferred to Ropar.

¶23

2 –

¶24

CWP No.21738 of 2010.doc

¶25

(3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the transfer being an incidence of service, it is not expedient for a writ court to interfere with the same unless there exist some strong reasons/circumstances. The transfer of the petitioner from Mohali to Ropar per se is not likely to cause any extreme hardship to the petitioner especially in view of the fact that the both places are in and around Chandigarh city where the family of the petitioner is stated to be settled. However, if the petitioner, on account of some special mitigating circumstances wants his continuation at Mohali, he shall be at liberty to make a representation highlighting such mitigating circumstances. The competent authority is directed to consider the representation sympathetically and keeping in view the policy guidelines. It would be appreciated if the petitioner’s representation is considered and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of its submission.

¶26

(4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶27

01.04.2011 vishal shonkar

¶28

(S u r y a K a n t) Judge

Major Singh v. Pspc Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Major Singh v. Pspc Ltd. and Anr.

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

Jasdeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhura Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Subhash Lubricant Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gian Parkash Vs Deputy Collector & Ors.

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhai Harjit Singh Vs S.G.P.C. and Ors.