Disposed

Tajinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2014CWP/25060/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a civilian driver transferred to Assam, challenged the order as discriminatory. Court found transfer administrative, not punitive, and disposed of petition, directing competent authority to sympathetically consider requests for retaining petitioner in the same region.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; directive to competent authority to consider petitioner's request for retention in same region sympathetically.

Tajinder Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.25060 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 08, 2014

Tajinder Singh

.....Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶9

Present : Mr.Karan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner is a driver employed on civilian side under respondent No.6. He alongwith one of his colleagueemployee laid challenge to the orders dated 23.5.2012 and 05.10.2012 whereby they were ordered to be transferred to Assam. Petitioner's representation against that order was rejected. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, vide the impugned order dated 27.5.2014 too has declined to interfere with those orders.

¶17

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book.

¶18

Though it appears that the petitioner and his coapplicant made an attempt to make out a case of discrimination against the civilian drivers viz-a-viz the military drivers and in that backdrop, they questioned the legitimacy of their transfer to Assam, nonetheless, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been transferred only for administrative reasons and not as a punitive measure.

¶19

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

[2]

¶21

CWP No.25060 of 2014

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several mitigating circumstances to invoke sympathetic and equitable considerations for the petitioner's retention at Bathinda and/or nearby place within the same region.

¶23

We are of the considered view that if there exist such mitigating circumstances, the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to represent the Competent Authority alongwith such details. We have no reason to doubt that notwithstanding the dismissal of petitioner's Original Application or the fact that we have declined to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal, the Competent Authority shall consider the petitioner's request dispassionately and sympathetically and shall make an earnest effort to retain him within the same region.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

¶25

December 08, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶26

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Tajinder Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tajinder Singh v. Union of India & 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

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Durbeen Singh Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurdwawa Jharwana Sahib Vill Dittupur Jattan Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Central Administrative Triunal and Ors.

Nathi Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nandita Sisodia Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors.