- (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:- "....To my mind the order is explicit. The approval of her appointment was by way of transfer as there is a provision for appointment by transfer from other States. By way of abundant caution the Haryana Government had further sought clarification from the Punjab Government to pay leave salary and pension contribution for the period of service rendered by the employee in the Punjab State. The fact that the appointment was by way of Transfer is further made clear by the order of posting Annexure P-6. The same also says that she is being posted in Faridabad upon her transfer from Ropar. Since the appointment was by way of transfer, it was required that she would be placed at the bottom of the seniority. Still further since the transfer was at the request of the petitioner it was further stated that she would not claim seniority and TA/DA. It was, therefore, that an affidavit was required from the petitioner stating the aforementioned facts. If it was a fresh appointment, then there was no requirement of such an affidavit. The aforementioned facts have no room for doubt that appointment of the petitioner was by way of transfer. I, therefore, cannot agree with the contention of the respondents that it was a fresh appointment. Thus, the claim of the petitioner would be covered under Rule 4.4(a)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. As per the said rule, the salary of the petitioner as a result of her joining in the State of Haryana on transfer was required to be protected". We have also perused the correspondence and the orders passed from time to time, which were attached with the writ petition as Annexures P1 to P10 and found that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the respondent/petitioner was absorbed by way of transfer from the State of Punjab to Haryana is inescapable.;