TRIPTA MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Mrs. Tripta Malhotra, Principal Tutor (Nursing), is a deserted woman with two sons. Earlier her sons were looked after by her parents but after their death, she applied for transfer from Sangrur to Patiala. This request was accepted on compassionate grounds and the petitioner was transferred to Patiala vide order dated 15th/25th May 1990, in pursuance whereof she actually joined at Patiala on 4th June, 1990. However, this transfer order was cancelled by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab on 25th June, 1990 and one Smt. Sharanjit Kaur, respondent No. 3 was kept at Patiala. Later on the matter was reviewed by the Director and cancellation of the transfer order was kept in abeyance and the petitioner Smt. Tripta Malhotra, was allowed to work in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, by relieving Smt. Sharanjit Kaur from that place on administrative grounds. Again, on 31st July, 1990, the Director informed the Medical Superintendent, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, that the transfer matter had been reviewed by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Health and Family Welfare Department and it had been decided to permit Smt. Tripta Malhotra to continue to work in Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, as Principal Tutor (Nursing).

(2.) Quite surprisingly, on 3rd August, 1990, the Director addressed another communication to the Medical Superintendent, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala, informing him that on reconsideration it was decided that Smt. Sharanjit Kaur shall continue at Patiala in place of Smt. Tripta Malhotra, who was to join at Civil Hospital, Sangrur. It is against this order that the petitioner feels aggrieved and has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab and the Director, Medical Education and Research, as also Mr. Iqbal Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Smt. Sharanjit Kaur, respondent No. 3, at length, and have also gone through the policy instructions of the State Government regarding transfers. It is quite surprising that frequent reshuffling of the petitioner and Smt. Sharanjit Kaur, respondent No. 3, from Patiala to Sangrur and vice-versa, has taken place in a routine and casual manner. Once the authorities had found the request of Mrs. Tripta Malhotra as genuine and had accepted the same on compassionate grounds, as a result whereof she was posted at Patiala, it would have been more elegant for the authorities if she was allowed to continue at Patiala at least for a reasonably long period. If for certain reasons, e.g., retirement of Smt. Sharanjit Kaur within the next one and a half years, the authorities wanted to post Smt. Sharanjit Kaur also at Patiala, there was no impediment in their way to keep her there if there was already a post in existence for her or even by creating another post. No doubt, the matter of transfer of employees is an administrative one, but keeping in view the fairness in action, convenience of the parties and efficiency of administration, it is essential that orders once passed are allowed to stand and remain in force for a considerably long period. This would not only bring credit and elegance to the authorities but will also restore confidence in the employees, and obviate the necessity of their approaching the Courts alleging arbitrariness in administrative action.