High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 09 P&H CK 0063

Sandeep Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 9 September 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 19839 of 2013 (O and M)

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 341 words

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner is serving on the post of Radiographer under the Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of Punjab. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while serving at Community Health Centre, Mehta had submitted a request to be adjusted against the post of Radiographer, which was lying vacant in Bhai Mohkam Singh Memorial Hospital, Amritsar. Such request was recommended by the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar and vide order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab at Annexure P-3, the petitioner was transferred to Amritsar.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Primary Health Centre, Kairon (Taran Taran), whereas respondent No. 3 namely Sumanjit Kaur has been posted in place of the petitioner, on request.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a solitary submission that the request of the petitioner having been entertained and acceded to for being adjusted at Amritsar, there was no change in circumstances only after a lapse of a few weeks for the petitioner to be again posted out of Amritsar.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I find no basis that would warrant interference in the impugned order of transfer. Transfer is an incidence of service. It would be for the appropriate authority to issue orders of transfer in administrative exigency of service. Be that as it may, the pleadings on record would clearly reflect that the petitioner had been adjusted on the post of Radiographer at Amritsar only on 11.7.2013 vide order Annexure P-3. In the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) it appears that the request made by private respondent No. 3 has prevailed, which has resulted in the displacement of the petitioner from Amritsar.

5.

Accordingly, while dismissing the present writ petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent-authorities/competent authority as regards redressal of her grievance. If, any such claim/representation is submitted, the same would be considered sympathetically. Petition dismissed.