Partly allowed

Vikas Balyan v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2019CWP/7178/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging government transfer orders. For one petitioner, the petition was rendered infructuous as the impugned order was repeatedly withdrawn and cancelled by the State Government. The other petition was dismissed as no ground for interference existed, noting the petitioner was already working at the destination pending litigation.

What did the court decide?

CWP-12027-2019 disposed as rendered infructuous due to cancellation of the impugned order; CWP-7178-2019 dismissed as no ground for interference was made out.

Vikas Balyan Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.08.29 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1

¶2

CWP Nos.7178 & 12027 of 2019 (O&M)

¶3

255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.08.2019 1. CWP-7178-2019 (O&M) Vikas Balyan ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 2. CWP-12027-2019 (O&M) Sameer Sharma ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶5

Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-12027-2019 and for applicant/respondent No.5 in CM-10226-2019 in CWP-7178-2019. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-7178-2019. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No.3 in CM-8056-2019 in CWP-12027-2019

¶6

¶7

AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL) CM-10226-2019 in CWP-7178-2019

¶8

Allowed as prayed for.

¶9

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.08.29 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶10

CWP Nos.7178 & 12027 of 2019 (O&M)

¶11

MAIN CASES

¶12

This order of mine shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP No.7178 of 2019 titled as “Vikas Balyan V/s State of Haryana and another” and CWP No.12027 of 2019 titled as “Sameer Sharma V/s State of Haryana and others”.

¶13

In CWP-7178-2019, petitioner-Vikas Balyan is seeking indulgence of this Court for quashing impugned transfer order dated 22.02.2019 (Annexure P-4), whereby he has been transferred from Naraingarh to Panchkula, before expiry of three years period as mentioned in instructions dated 18.04.1980, vice Sameer Sharma, writ petitioner in CWP-12027-2019.

¶14

This Court, vide order dated 15.03.2019 in CWP-7178-2019, stayed operation of impugned order dated 22/25.02.2019. Applicant/respondent No.5-Sameer Sharma filed an application bearing CM No.4655-CWP of 2019 for vacation of stay order dated 15.03.2019 and on consideration of matter, this Court, vide order dated 03.04.2019, granted status quo order qua posting of Sameer Sharma/respondent No.5.

¶15

It has been brought to the notice of this Court that during pendency of writ petition, the State Government had, vide order dated 30.04.2019, withdrawn transfer order dated 22.02.2019. It is, in these circumstances, applicant/respondent No.5-Sameer Sharma, being aggrieved, approached this Court, vide CWP No.12027 of 2019.

¶16

At this stage of hearing of the case, learned State Counsel informs that the State Government had, vide order dated 21.05.2019, cancelled order dated 30.04.2019 withdrawing transfer order dated 22.02.2019.

¶17

YOGESH SHARMA 2019.08.29 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3

¶18

CWP Nos.7178 & 12027 of 2019 (O&M)

¶19

In view of such circumstances, grievance of petitioner/Sameer Sharma, in CWP No.12027 of 2019, has been redressed, therefore, writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

¶20

As far as the case of the petitioner-Vikas Balyan, in CWP No.7178 of 2019, who has not been transferred, it has been pointed out that before transfer order, Vikas Balyan, was transferred thrice within a period of five months, but was not challenged, even otherwise, he has rendered service of two years and seven months, approximately. There is no bar in the transfer policy/instructions, in case of exigency on administrative ground.

¶21

I am of the view that the petitioner is already working at Panchkula, since February 2019, in view of interim order dated 15.03.2019 passed by this Court and there cannot be any grievance as it was just few months' short of three years' period, as prescribed in transfer policy/instructions dated 18.04.1980.

¶22

No ground is made out for interference, accordingly, CWP No.7178 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶23

Pending applications in both the writ petitions, if any, are also disposed of.

¶24

( AMIT RAWAL ) 20.08.2019 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No Whether Reportable Yes/ No

Vikas Balyan v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Balyan v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Sunita and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Satish Kumar Bedwal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kuldeep Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Partap Singh Vs Sonepat Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Another

Sushil Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another