This case was disposed of on merits by following the terms of a prior judgment (C.W.P. No.14742 of 1992) which quashed a transfer order regarding bank officers based on domicile and seniority considerations.
Quashed the annexure relating to the petitioners' transfer to continue at the original place of posting.
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.15214 of 1992
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.15214 of 1992. Date of decision : 4th July, 2013.
Mihan Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh & Ors.
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
*******
Present : Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Dalal, Advocate, for the respondent.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel are agreed that the facts of this case are covered by the decision of C.W.P. No.14742 of 1992 decided on 27th April, 1993 in the following terms:-
“ There is no dispute that the facts and circumstances and the question of law involved in this case is squarely covered by C.W.P. No.5757 of 1990 decided on 3.12.1990 by a Division Bench of this Court.
CWP No.15214 of 1992
-:2:-
The only grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are senior and they are domicile of Kurukshetra. They are working in Kurukshetra for the last 19 years and have constructed their houses in Kurukshetra. According to the policy decision taken by the Bank, on bifurcation, it is the junior who has to be shifted to the transferee bank, keeping in view the domicile. Since the petitioners are working in Kurukshetra for the last 19 years and have constructed their houses in Kurukshetra, it can safely be assumed that they domicile would be Kurukshetra.
Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, Annexure P-5 is quashed, so far as it relates to the petitioners, by which they had been transferred from Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd., Kurkshetra to Kaithal Central Coop. Bank Ltd., Kaithal. Resultantly, they will continue at their original place of posting i.e. where they were posted before the transfer order. However, it is made clear that the respondents would be at liberty to transfer the petitioners in accordance with the guidelines.
The writ petition is allowed in these terms.”
Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of on the same
terms.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE
4th July, 2013 Gaurav Sorot
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of on the same terms as the facts under Article 141 of the Constitution are covered by a previous judgment of this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Division Bench of this CourtFollowed¶21
C.W.P. No.5757 of 1990
C.W.P. No.14742 of 1992Followed¶20
C.W.P. No.14742 of 1992
Mihan Singh
The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
