PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case does not reflect well so far as the Department of Development & Panchayat, Haryana Civil Secretariat is concerned. The petitioner, who is supposed to retire in October, 2011, has been ordered to be transferred. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, was asked to have instructions even without issuing notice because normally it is felt that the Court should not interfere in transfer matters. On request made by Mr. Rathee, the case was adjourned twice to await instructions. Third time when the case came up for hearing on 25.8.2011, Mr. Rathee expressed his helplessness by pointing out that despite repeated communications, no response was received from the respondent -Department. Notice of motion was then issued and the operation of impugned order was stayed besides directing respondent No.1 to come present.

(2.) MR . Anand Mohan Sharan, IAS, Special Secretary to Government Haryana, is present in the Court and intends to file an affidavit pointing out that the transfer has been cancelled. Affidavit is accepted and taken on record.

(3.) THIS is not a first or perhaps the last occasion when the Secretary of the concerned department is found unaware of the notice issued by this Court to the Secretary concerned. Perhaps this is working as system that the cases are not put up to the Secretary concerned and are dealt with at lower level. This would have to change. The responsibility is that of the Secretary concerned. Some times even replies are filed on behalf of the Secretary without his knowing about the case. Some system is required to be evolved to correct such aberrations. That issue may be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary to evolve some system in this regard. The writ petition otherwise is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary for taking appropriate action.