Ram Lal Ratta (S.D.E.) S/O Sh. Chamba Ram ... vs State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary on 27 December, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Lal Ratta (S.D.E.) S/O Sh. Chamba Ram ... vs State Of Punjab Through Its Secretary on 27 December, 2011

Bench: K. Kannan

C.W.P. No.27579 of 2011                                     -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH
                               C.W.P. No.24579 of 2011
                               Date of Decision.27.12.2011

Ram Lal Ratta (S.D.E.) s/o Sh. Chamba Ram O/o Chief Engineer, Punjab,
PWD (B&R) Branch, Patiala r/o #198, Prem Nagar, Bahdson Road, Patiala
                                             .....Petitioner
                                 Versus

State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Public Works
(B&R), Mini Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others
                                                .....Respondents
Present: Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
   judgment ?
2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                       -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order of transfer issued against the petitioner on 23.12.2011. The petitioner's contention is that he is due for retirement in September, 2012 and that is about 9 months of service is still left and he ought not to be transferred in the light of the guidelines issued by the State that a person, who is due for retirement within a period of two years before the retirement, shall not be transferred in so far as it is possible to avoid the same.

2. The transfer policy does not give any vested right to a person to contend that transfer cannot be effected in a situation where he is due for retirement within a period of one year. It will be however salutary that the public authority to observe the same, save for strong reasons to deviate from the guidelines. The petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.1 for redressal of his C.W.P. No.27579 of 2011 -2- grievance. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner for a consideration of his representation, I will find no reason to make any judicial intervention in this case.

3. The petition challenging the order of transfer is consequently dismissed but with liberty for consideration of his representation to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from today.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 27, 2011 Pankaj*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court