CWP No. 11224 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11224 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 08, 2010 Sushma Goyal .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-2 dated 21.06.2010 to the extent that it cancels the transfer of the petitioner. 2. It has been brought out that the petitioner was transferred on her request from Bathinda to Mansa against a vacant post vide order dated 12.05.2010, placed on record as Annexure P-1. The petitioner joined service at Mansa on 13.05.2010. Vide the impugned order Annexure P-2, in just about a month's time, the order of transfer has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner is scheduled to retire on 20.02.2011 i.e. in about 8 months' time. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab CWP No. 11224 of 2010 2 accepts notice. 6. Learned counsel for the parties, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, pray for the matter to be taken up for hearing for final disposal today itself. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that she has instructions to say on behalf of Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab that the earlier Director was scheduled to retire and it seems that in a hush and hurry, without considering the administrative exigency ordered scores of transfers. Without any discrimination, all the transfers have been cancelled. There is neither any mala fide nor any malice in cancellation of transfer orders earlier issued by the former Director. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the Director would reconsider order Annexure P-2 to see whether order Annexure P-1 was issued in administrative exigency or not. It has been specifically stated that all the cases of transfer 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 an official in public interest. In the above regards, the cases would be reconsidered and appropriate orders passed. Considering the above, if the circumstances so warrant, the subsequent order of cancellation of transfer would be withdrawn. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further states that all the other cases will be considered during general transfer as per general transfer policy adopted by the State Government. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner CWP No. 11224 of 2010 3 would be satisfied if the case of the petitioner is reconsidered in terms of the offer given on behalf of respondent-State. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the directions that status quo shall be maintained for six weeks from today, during which period the case of the petitioner shall be reconsidered by respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is further directed to take into account the fact that the petitioner is scheduled to retire in February 2011 and, therefore, it would be very harsh and inequitable to disturb the petitioner at this stage. 08.07.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?