Dismissed

Pushpa Wati v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2021CWP/24470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a transfer order within the same district, claiming lack of specific policy for her category. The Court held that transfers are administrative matters within the employer's discretion and do not constitute punishment unless extreme hardship is shown. No interference was found necessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari to quash the transfer order dismissed; no grounds to interfere established.

Pushpa Wati Vs State of Haryana and Others — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-24470-2021 Date of decision: 02.12.2021

¶3

PushpaWati …Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶7

Present: Mr.Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

¶10

Petitioner herein, inter alia , seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash transfer order dated 02.112021 (Annexure P-1) vide which he has been transferred from CHC Kandela, Sub CenterKhokhari, District Jind to CHC Alewa, Sub CenterAlewa-I District Jind.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though case of the petitioner falls under thecouple case category,but the department has not adopted any specific policy for its employees in view of Government Instructions dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P3). He submits that qua his aforesaid grievance, petitioner submitted his representation dated 10.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) but the same has not been adverted by the respondents till date. Hence, the instant petition.

¶12

On advance service, learned State counsel appears and opposes issuance of notice of motion. He submits that petitioner has been transferred only at a distance of 40 kms. and within the same district i.e.Jind and that too having been posted at same place for more than 30 years.

¶13

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through

¶15

the case file.

¶16

Transfer being matter of administrative exigency, this Court generally refrains to interfere and treads cautiously, unless it is a case of extreme hardship. The case in hand does not seem to be such so as to deserve any indulgence. Moreover, to transfer an official, or not to, is sole discretion of the employer based on the administrative exigencies. Not doing or doing so is not a punishment, but an integral part of service conditions.

¶17

The impugned order dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) does not call for any interference from this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶18

No grounds to interfere are made out. Dismissed.

¶19

02.12.2021 (ARUN MONGA) vandana JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶20

SHALINI BHATIA 2021.12.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pushpa Wati v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Wati 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Rani Vs State of Haryana and Another

Vikram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Ambika Realcon Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Ravinder Singh Vs Dilbagh Singh and Others

Suman Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Harwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Others