The court clarified that a transfer order previously stayed on the “couple case” ground becomes unchallengeable if the couple status ceases (here, due to spouse’s service termination), disposing of the petition as infructuous. This upholds the requirement for a subsisting couple status to sustain such challenges. Judgment provides affirmance (not new law), binding on Punjab & Haryana subordinate courts, and persuasive elsewhere, especially in government service transfer matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/14779/2024 of SACHIN KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010821702024 |
| Date of Registration | 28-06-2024 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench; MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Service Law – Government Servant Transfers |
| Questions of Law | Whether a challenge to a transfer order on the “couple case” ground survives after cessation of couple status |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a challenge to a transfer order on the ground of couple status does not survive if, during the pendency of the petition, the spouse (basis for couple status) is no longer in service. The case was rendered infructuous due to this factual development. The court’s reasoning affirms that judicial review on this ground requires subsisting couple status at decision stage. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Admitted facts on record; review of status as on date of decision; no specific external authorities cited. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged a transfer order on the couple case ground citing employment and medical status of spouse. During pendency, the impugned order was stayed. The spouse was thereafter terminated from service. The court found that the challenge could not survive with the spouse no longer in service and disposed of the petition as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, litigants in service transfer disputes based on “couple case” or similar factual contingencies |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court affirmed that retention/transfer petitions on “couple case” grounds become infructuous if the underlying couple status ceases during the pendency of litigation.
- Lawyers should ensure the subsistence of the factual basis (e.g., spouse’s employment) supporting service law challenges both at filing and at the time of final adjudication.
- Changes in parties’ employment status may be fatal to ongoing writ petition reliefs premised on those statuses.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered that the main prayer—quashing of transfer based on “couple case” (joint posting with spouse)—was rendered moot after the petitioner’s spouse was terminated from service.
- The court relied on admitted facts from both petitioner and respondents regarding the change in employment status.
- As a result, the cause of action for retaining the petitioner on “couple case” grounds ceased to exist, necessitating disposal of the petition as infructuous.
- There was no reference to or application of any outside precedents or legal authorities, the court applying simple logic to the admitted factual scenario.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of transfer order on grounds of “couple case” (requesting posting with spouse).
- Cited recommendations of departmental authorities and spouse’s medical categorization.
- Argued the transfer violated administrative orders and guidelines.
Respondent (Union of India)
- Informed the court of the wife’s subsequent termination from service as of 28.07.2025.
- Contended that with the spouse no longer in service, the premise for the challenge no longer existed.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged a transfer order issued on 24.06.2024, alleging it was arbitrary and violated administrative recommendations and standing orders, also citing the spouse’s employment and medical status. An earlier court order stayed the transfer based on “couple case” grounds. However, during pendency, petitioner’s wife was terminated from employment, which fact was admitted by both sides. This led to the petition’s main ground disappearing, resulting in its disposal as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
The court exercised jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. No further statutory interpretation was undertaken as the factual development obviated the need for deeper analysis.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this single-judge bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None noted; the petition was disposed of on factual grounds with no new procedural directions or guidelines.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirmed existing principles requiring the continuing existence of foundational facts (here, spouse’s service) for writ relief on transfer/couple case grounds.