215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Kanchan Bishnoi State of Haryana and CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The LPA assails the order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 08.04.2021, whereby the challenge made by respondent No.5 of his transfer order dated 05.05.2020, was accepted and the same was quashed and he was allowed to continue to perform his duties at Hisar. 2. The posting of respondent No.5 at Hisar was on account appellant having proceeded on child care leave w.e.f. 19.03.2018 to 13.03.2020, and the period of child care leave, the appellant was being paid salary from Fatehabad. It is the case of the appellant that there was no order of transferring the app child care leave, she was required to join at the original place of posting i.e. Water Testing Lab, PHED, Hisar had been passed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-644 Date of Decision: Kanchan Bishnoi Vs. State of Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Naseem A. Sheikh, Advocate for *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The LPA assails the order passed by the learned Single Bench 04.2021, whereby the challenge made by respondent No.5 of his transfer order dated 05.05.2020, was accepted and the same was quashed and he was allowed to continue to perform his duties at Hisar. The posting of respondent No.5 at Hisar was on account appellant having proceeded on child care leave w.e.f. 19.03.2018 to 13.03.2020, and the period of child care leave, the appellant was being paid salary from Fatehabad. It is the case of the appellant that there was no order of transferring the appellant to Fatehabad and after she had completed her child care leave, she was required to join at the original place of posting i.e. Water Testing Lab, PHED, Hisar and therefore, the order dated 05.05.2020 had been passed. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 644-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 …Appellant …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Naseem A. Sheikh, Advocate for respondent No.5. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) The LPA assails the order passed by the learned Single Bench 04.2021, whereby the challenge made by respondent No.5 of his transfer order dated 05.05.2020, was accepted and the same was quashed and he was allowed to continue to perform his duties at Hisar. The posting of respondent No.5 at Hisar was on account of the appellant having proceeded on child care leave w.e.f. 19.03.2018 to 13.03.2020, and the period of child care leave, the appellant was being paid salary from Fatehabad. It is the case of the appellant that there was no order to Fatehabad and after she had completed her child care leave, she was required to join at the original place of posting i.e. and therefore, the order dated 05.05.2020 The LPA assails the order passed by the learned Single Bench 04.2021, whereby the challenge made by respondent No.5 of his transfer order dated 05.05.2020, was accepted and the same was quashed and of the appellant having proceeded on child care leave w.e.f. 19.03.2018 to 13.03.2020, and the period of child care leave, the appellant was being paid salary from Fatehabad. It is the case of the appellant that there was no order to Fatehabad and after she had completed her child care leave, she was required to join at the original place of posting i.e. and therefore, the order dated 05.05.2020 RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.04 12:08 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. LPA-644-2021 (O&M) [2] 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the circumstances, there was no occasion to quash the order dated 05.05.2020. 4. We find that after order dated 05.05.2020 was passed, the appellant has been continuously performing her duties at Fatehabad while original writ petitioner/respondent No.5 has been continuously performing his duties at Hisar. Almost five years has lapsed. We, therefore, left it open for the State Government to pass fresh orders now and close the issue at this stage. In this regard, the appellant may submit appropriate representation. 5. In view thereto, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. 6. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE 02.07.2025 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2025.07.04 12:08 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.