IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 26, 2010 1. Civil Writ Petition No.11109 of 2010 Lakhvir Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.11183 of 2010 Satbir Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 3. Civil Writ Petition No.11181 of 2010 Harjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.11109 of 2010 [2] 4. Civil Writ Petition No.11177 of 2010 Sukhjinder Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 5. Civil Writ Petition No.11116 of 2010 Amarjit Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 6. Civil Writ Petition No.11238 of 2010 Navtej Singh & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CWP No.11109 of 2010 [3] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This shall dispose of bunch of writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos.11109 of 2010, `Lakhvir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’; 11183 of 2010, `Satbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’; 11181 of 2010, `Harjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’; 11177 of 2010, `Sukhjinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’; 11116 of 2010, `Amarjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’; and 11238 of 2010, `Navtej Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others’. 2. For reference to record, Civil Writ Petition Nos.11109 of 2010, `Lakhvir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Others’ is being taken up. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contends that the incumbent Director, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, cancelled the orders of transfer issued by the earlier CWP No.11109 of 2010 [4] retiring Director, without any application of mind, causing undue hardship to persons such as the petitioner(s), just after a month of earlier transfer orders. 4. Learned counsel has pointed out that the issue has been dealt with by this Court in Order dated 6.7.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.11693 of 2010 titled `Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another’ and the present case be disposed of in the same terms. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State contends that indeed the case of petitioner (s) would be considered in terms of the undertaking given in Court by Dr. J.P. Singh, present Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, in the case of Jasbir Kaur (supra). 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. In Jasbir Kaur’s case (supra), Dr. J.P. Singh had appeared and had brought to the notice of the Court that scores of transfers have been issued by the retiring Director. Without any discrimination, all the transfers have been cancelled so as to assess whether the transfers are in administrative exigency or not. Dr. J.P. Singh had further assured the Court that none of the orders has been passed with malafide CWP No.11109 of 2010 [5] intention. An assurance was given to the Court that the petitioner(s) would be heard and his/her case for transfer would be reconsidered considering the administrative exigency. Cases of transfers in relation to widows, physically handicapped persons, cases wherein transfer is on mutual request and where transfers have been effected on vacant posts, would be considered in the context of administrative exigency so that no hospital/ office remains without posting of any official in public interest. The other cases would also be reconsidered. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) states that the petitioner(s) would be satisfied to the reconsideration of his/her case in view of what has been stated by Dr. J.P. Singh, Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, in Jasbir Kaur’s case (supra). 9. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of in terms of Order dated 6.7.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.11693 of 2010 titled `Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Another’. (AJAI LAMBA) July 26, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?