Judgment:
CWP No.16519 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16519 of 2012.
Date of Decision :
16. 08.2013.
Parkasho Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kiran Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
(Oral) The petitioner, who is working as a Senior Assistant, has approached this Court in terms of impugning order dated 23.08.2012 (Annexure-P7).whereby her posting in the office of Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP, Chandigarh on temporary basis has been cancelled.
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner had been transferred from Crime Wing, Punjab to the office of Additional Director General of Police, Armed Battalion, Jalandhar Cant vide order dated 28.06.2012.
It has been argued that it is on account of the compelling family circumstances of the petitioner Kanchan 2013.08.19 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.16519 o”
2. that a request has been submitted by the petitioner to be retained at Chandigarh itself and acceding to such request order dated 08.08.2012 (Annexure-P6) was passed, whereby she was posted in the office of Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP at Chandigarh.
Counsel has argued that merely after a period of few weeks, the impugned order had been passed thereby calling upon her to join at Jalandhar.
Learned Senior counsel would refer to the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch, Chandigarh and placed on record at Annexure-P3 to contend that the work and conduct of the petitioner at her present place of posting in Chandigarh has been exemplary and as such there would be no basis for the respondent- authorities to displace her from Chandigarh to Jalandhar.
That apart, it has been argued that the petitioner is facing certain domestic difficulties in the nature of her husband having deserted her and she having two college going children at Chandigarh itself.
Notice of motion was issued in the writ petition on 27.08.2012 and interim directions were also passed for the petitioner to be allowed to continue on the post of Senior Assistant in the office of Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP, Chandigarh.
A joint written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 has been filed, whereby a stand has been taken that after the transfer of the petitioner from Chandigarh to Jalandhar vide order dated 28.06.2012, a subsequent order dated 08.08.2012 was Kanchan 2013.08.19 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.16519 o”
3. passed temporarily attaching the petitioner with the office of Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP, Chandigarh.
As such, the stand taken on behalf of respondent-authorities is that it was a mere ad-hoc and temporary arrangement, whereby the petitioner was retained in Chandigarh but the initial order of transfer dated 28.06.2012 was not cancelled.
Having heard counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out.
It is well settled that transfer is a mere incidence of service.
Scope of Judicial Scrutiny in orders of transfer would be very limited.
An order of transfer would be interfered with only, if it has been passed by an authority not vested with the power and jurisdiction to order such transfer, if such transfer has been ordered in violation of some statutory provision or if the transfer order is vitiated by mala fides.
In the facts of the present case, none of the grounds afore-noticed have been made out.
It would have to be construed that the transfer of the petitioner from Chandigarh to Jalandhar has been directed in the normal administrative exigency of service.
On a pointed query, having been put to the learned Senior counsel, it has been conceded that prior to issuance of the order dated 28.06.2012, the petitioner has enjoyed the current place of posting in Chandigarh for a period in excess of three yeaRs.It would be apposite to notice that the petitioner has continued in Chandigarh for an additional period of one year under the protection of an interim order passed by this Court.
Kanchan 2013.08.19 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.16519 o”
4. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
August 16, 2013.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2013.08.19 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document