High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3198/2018disposed of

Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

2018-02-12Mr Justice Jaswant Singh2 pages

CWP-3198-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-3198-2018 Date of Decision: February 12, 2018 Rajesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr. S.S. Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner.

ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion.

Mr. Siddharth Sanwaria, DAG, Haryana, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copies furnished. For the nature of order, I propose to pass in the matter, no formal written statements/counter affidavits on behalf of the respondents are indeed necessary, at this stage. Thus, with the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally.

The petitioner is employed as Driver with the respondent department. And vide order dated 31.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), he was transferred from Faridabad to Bhiwani. However, vide impugned order dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure P-2), his order of transfer Annexure P-1 has since been withdrawn and the petitioner is required to rejoin at Faridabad. The order under challenge (Annexure P-2) has been assailed on multiple grounds. The petitioner purports to have even represented to the respondents, vide representation, dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure P-4). But to no avail.

Prashant Kapoor 2018.02.12 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-3198-2018 Learned State counsel submits that in the matter involving similar issues, as regards transfer of the employees of the Transport Department, Haryana, this Court vide order and judgment dated 01.09.2017 (Annexure P-5), as also the judgment dated 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-6), rendered in CWP No. 24190 of 2017 (Dilbag Singh v. State of Haryana and others), had issued comprehensive directions to the department to deal with similar issues. Thus, he submits that the grievance/claim of the petitioner as also his representation, dated 17.11.2017 (Annexure P-4), shall be considered in terms thereof and the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within six weeks from today.

That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing substantive survives in this petition and the same be disposed of in the above terms.

Ordered accordingly.

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE February 12, 2018 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES / NO Whether Reportable:

YES / NO Prashant Kapoor 2018.02.12 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document