Punjab and Haryana High Court
CWP/24585/2011 of GAJE SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. on 29 December 2011
of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.24585 of 2011 Date of decision : 29.12.2011 Gaje Singh ................Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present:- Mr. B.S.Rathee, Advocate, for the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
CWP No.24585 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No.24585 of 2011Date of decision : 29.12.2011
Gaje Singh
Vs.
................Petitioner
State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present:- Mr. B.S.Rathee, Advocate, for the petitioner
---
-K.KANNAN, J (ORAL) :
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer which has beenpreviously issued on 15.7.2011, transferring him from Assandh to Panipat, atwhich place he had also joined. Now through the impugned order, thetransfer order already effected, is sought to be cancelled. The distancebetween Panipat to Assandh, according to the counsel, is about 30 Kms. andhe is being harassed by recurrent transfers, earlier at least four times andcancelled it every time within a period of one year. The counsel argues thatit is against the policy declared by the Government itself that no transfer willbe done within a period of three years from the previous order.
The guidelines give no vested right to any employee and they aredirected only to the authorities in so far as it is practicable.
The petitioner says that he has given a representation and seeks forconsideration of the same. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner hasbeen subjected to recurrent orders of transfers and the petitioner has agrievance that he is being harassed, I direct that representation given by the CWP No.24585 of 2011
petitioner (Annexure P-6) to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public HealthEngineering Department, Haryana, Panchkula, who is arrayed as secondrespondent, considers his representation and takes a final decision within oneweek from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Writ petition is disposed of.
29.12.2011akm
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE