Om Parkash Teneja v. State Of Haryana Etc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.03.2015 Dr. Om Parkash Teneja ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M.No.2943 of 2015 The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Copy of transfer policy (Annexure P-5) is taken on record. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the transfer order dated 29.01.2015 from SSA Palwal to SSA Mewat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 29.01.2015, vide which the petitioner was transferred from SSA Palwal to SSA Mewat and posted as Assistant Project

Coordinator in the office of District Project Coordinator, SSA Palwal and the petitioner was told to join the place of posting on transfer. He further submits that transfer of the petitioner is against the policy dated 07.04.1989 (Annexure P-5), whereby, it has been mentioned that when husband and wife are in Government service, being the couple case, couple should be posted at one station as far as possible or to a nearby station. It has further been submitted that against the order of transfer, petitioner is stated to have filed a representation dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure P4). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.2-The Commissioner-cum-Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Panchkula, is directed to decide the representation dated 07.02.

2015 (Annexure P-4) within a reasonable period of time. He further submits that prior to filing of aforementioned representation, the petitioner is stated to have submitted another representation for taking him back in the parental department and not to transfer him, yet the petitioner has been transferred from SSA Palwal to SSA Mewat.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that the prayer of the petitioner is fair and justified and accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and petitioner is permitted to pursue his representation (Annexure P-4) or file supplementary representation, if deems appropriate, for redressal of his grievance

for taking him back into parental department, in terms of the policy at Annexure P-5. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation dated 07.02.2015 at Annexure P-4 or any supplementary representation which petitioner files, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and respondent No.2 is further directed to communicate the decision thereof by passing a speaking and reasonable order. With the aforementioned observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE March 10, 2015 savita