CWP No.24574 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24574 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 27, 2011 Jasbir Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab. K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. At the asking of the Court, Shri K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab, takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that he is being transferred only because the 6th respondent had been transferred to Giddarbaha from Patiala as he has prevailed upon official respondents to recall the order and instead, the petitioner has been transferred. 3. Learned counsel points out that there are instructions which protect a person against being transferred within three years from the date of his posting and in case of couple, they shall not be transferred within five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that his wife is stationed in the same place and she is also a government servant and petitioner is at liberty to stay at the same station. 4. The transfer is a necessary incident of service and when there are guidelines the only aspect the government servant can expect is that the - 1- CWP No.24574 of 2011 guidelines are properly followed. There could exist no legally enforceable right to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to make representation pointing out the contentions raised in this writ petition to the authority-1st respondent who will take a decision in the light of the guidelines of the transfer policy within three weeks from today. Till the decision of the authority on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner’s transfer order shall remain suspended. 27.12.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg Judge - 2- CWP No.24574 of 2011 1. Notice of motion. At the asking of the Court, Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of official respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner will supply three copies of the writ petition to the State Counsel, during the course of the day. 1. The petitioner grievance is that he is being transferred only because the 6th respondent had been transferred to Giddarbaha from Patiala as he has prevailed upon respondent No.5. He prays to the official respondents to recall the order under which the petitioner has been transferred. 2. Learned counsel points out that there are instructions which protect a person against being transferred within three years from the date of his posting and in case of couples, they shall not be transferred within five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that his wife is stationed in the same place and she is also a government servant 3. The transfer is a necessary incident of service and if there are guidelines, the only aspect the government servant can expect is that the guidelines are properly followed and if there is a scope for deviation under the parameters laid down in the guidelines themselves, they should be properly addressed before a decision is taken. 4. The petitioner is at liberty to make representation pointing out the contentions raised in this writ petition to the authority-1st respondent, who will take a decision in the light of the guidelines of the transfer policy within three weeks from today. Till such time that decision is taken, the petitioner’s order of transfer would stand stayed. 5. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. - 3-