STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This L.P.A. No. 31 of 2008 has been listed before us in motion hearing. We have perused the impugned judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13885 of 1993. We are of the considered opinion that the reasoning given by learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition is just, apt and in accordance with law and facts of the case and no interference in appeal is called for.

(2.) XXX XXX XXX

(3.) Briefly stated, it has been noticed by the learned Single Judge, respondent/petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher in the State of Punjab on 3.1.1976. Due to family circumstances i.e. on account of promotion and transfer of her husband in the State of Haryana, she had sought transfer from the State of Punjab to State of Haryana and had submitted an application in January 1989 to the Secretary, Department of Education, Haryana. The State of Punjab gave no objection. Rather on the enquiry by the State of Haryana, it agreed to pay leave and pension contribution of the respondent/petitioner for the period she had served in the State of Punjab. To cut the factual matrix short to infer that the respondent/petitioner was transferred to the State of Haryana and it was not fresh appointment. The learned Single Judge had given following reasons:-