Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. KAMLA DEVI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-9397-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6239 (31 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C. W. P. No. 9397 of 2006

Date of Decision: September 05, 2006

Smt. Kamla Devi ...........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S.Khehar

Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D. Anand

Present: Mr. L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. S.L.Chandershekhar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 -

J.S. KHEHAR , J. (oral)

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of her transfer dated 31.5.2006. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the petitioner has been transferred from Amritsar to Patti. At the time of urgent motion hearing, this Court passed an interim order staying the impugned transfer order dated 31.5.2006 for two reasons, firstly that the petitioner had been transferred to Amritsar only on 14.2.2006 and about three months thereof she had been retransferred on 31.5.2006, secondly, the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2007 and as such it was inappropriate to transfer her soon before her retirement.

During the course of hearing today, we have perused the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3.

The same discloses that respondent No.3 is blind. A medical certificate has also been attached. Coupled with the aforesaid factual position, it has been averred on behalf of respondent No.3 that family of respondent No. 3 is located at Amritsar whereas he is posted at Patti and as such has to travel from Amritsar to Patti every day so as to be with his family.

Having examined the rival pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner on the one hand, and on behalf of respondent No.3, on the other we are satisfied that the claim of respondent No.3 to be posted at Amritsar is more justified than the claim of the petitioner.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, we have no other alternative but to uphold the impugned order of transfer dated 31.5.2006.

Dismissed.

(J.S.Khehar)

Judge

(S.D.Anand)

September 05, 2006 Judge

arya


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.