CWP No. 17477 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17477 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: August 10, 2010 Swaran Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. When the matter was heard on 13.11.2009, the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel contends that wife of the petitioner is serving in District Nawanshahar. The petitioner, till 22.3.2009 was serving at Bhaddi, District Nawanshahar. Vide order dated 22.3.2009, the petitioner was transferred to Surkhpur, District Kaputhala. The facts were brought to the notice of the authorities whereupon vide order dated 11.9.2009, the petitioner was posted at Jadala, District Nawanshahar. Learned counsel contends that vide impugned order dated 21.10.2009, again the petitioner has been CWP No. 17477 of 2009 2 posted at Surkhpur, District Kapurthala while wife of the petitioner continues to serve in District Nawanshahar. It being a couple case, order is inequitable.' Learned counsel has further pointed out that post is lying vacant at Jadala in District Nawanshahar, therefore, administrative exigency shall also not be disturbed if the petitioner is left to stay at Jadala. Notice of motion for 5.4.2010. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has not been relieved from Jadala, District Nawanshahar. Order, Annexure P-3, shall be kept in abeyance in regard to the petitioner, till the next date of hearing.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Ms. Darshan Kaur, District Education Officer, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar, states that the respondents are re-considering the issue of transfer of the petitioner in the context of the prayer that it is a couple case and keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the order extracted above. 3. This petition is accordingly disposed of to enable the respondents to take a fresh look into the facts and circumstances of the case and thereafter pass orders. 4. Operation of order Annexure P-3 shall be kept in abeyance till the respondents pass orders after reconsideration of the issue in the light of what has been said above. 10.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No. 17477 of 2009 3