C.W.P No. 18421 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 18421 of 2008 Date of decision : April 24, 2009 Smt. Pinki Kumari ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. K.L.Dhingra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.N.Khanduja, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) whereby her transfer from Karnal to Nilokheri (vide order dated 17.7.2008) was cancelled after a period of three months. The petitioner was working as Music Mistress in GSSS Model Town Karnal when her husband died on 1.7.2007. Her children and old mother-in-law had been staying at Nilokheri with her husband. In these C.W.P No. 18421 of 2008 ::2:: circumstances, she moved a representation through proper channel requesting that she be transferred to Nilokheri. Acting on the representation, the order dated 17.7.2008 was passed transferring her to Nilokheri vice respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 represented against the said transfer on the ground that she had shown 100% results for the last three years and, therefore, as per transfer policy, a teacher who had 100% results for three years, could not be transferred against his/her consent. It was on this representation that her transfer was cancelled. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that even the results of the petitioner have been 100% for the last more than three years and that as per clause (viii) of the transfer policy (Annexure P-4), efforts had to be made to post unmarried girls and widows as far as possible at stations opted by them. He has further argued that it was under these circumstances that the petitioner was transferred from Karnal to Nilokheri so that in the wake of her widowhood her entire family should not be disrupted. In my opinion, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. It is not disputed that respondent No.3 has been serving at Nilokheri for the last nine years. Even conceding that she may be a very good teacher yet the policy of encouragement of good teachers-as argued by counsel for respondent No.3-may necessarily have to give way to a policy of rehabilitation of widows. Even otherwise, transfer is an incidence of service and no employee has a right to claim any particular station. Though Courts should normally be loathe to interfere in such routine administrative matters, yet in the facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered opinion, the cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner is not C.W.P No. 18421 of 2008 ::3:: justified. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 24, 2009. JUDGE `kk'