Where a government employee’s challenge to transfer is premised on ‘couple case’ status, termination of the spouse’s employment renders such challenge infructuous—Punjab & Haryana High Court affirms existing approach; binding authority for service matters arising from changed circumstances post-filing.
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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction; persuasive otherwise |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Does a spouse’s subsequent termination from service nullify a transfer challenge based on ‘couple case’ grounds? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where a petitioner challenges a transfer order on the ground of being a ‘couple case’ and the spouse’s employment is terminated during the pendency of the writ, the foundational ground for challenge ceases to exist. Such a petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be disposed of accordingly. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought quashing of a transfer order, contending violation of ‘couple case’ policies and related recommendations. During the pendency, the petitioner’s wife was terminated from service. The respondents informed the court of this development, and the petitioner’s counsel admitted the fact, leading to dismissal of the petition as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative authorities dealing with similar ‘couple case’ transfer disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that where the central ‘couple case’ ground for challenging a transfer ceases to exist due to the spouse’s employment termination, the writ petition becomes infructuous.
- Petitioners and respondents must promptly disclose significant changes in relevant circumstances during the pendency of writs.
- Lawyers should note the need to update courts on changed facts affecting the maintainability of ongoing petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The core ground for the petitioner’s challenge to the transfer was the ‘couple case’ policy protection.
- The respondents brought to the court’s attention that the petitioner’s wife had been terminated from service after the writ was filed.
- The petitioner’s counsel admitted this fact.
- Since the ‘couple case’ status was the foundation of the relief sought, and as it ceased to exist, the court held the petition’s prayer did not survive.
- Consequently, the court disposed of the petition as infructuous.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged transfer order on grounds that it violated ‘couple case’ policy and ignores recommendations and standing orders.
- Cited petitioner’s wife’s employment and medical categorization restraints.
Respondent (Union of India)
- Brought to court’s notice that the spouse was terminated from services after the stay order.
- Asserted, and received acknowledgement from petitioner, that the basis for challenging the transfer (the ‘couple case’ ground) was no longer in existence.
Factual Background
The petitioner sought quashing of a transfer order on the basis of ‘couple case’ status, claiming action was against policy, recommendations, and standing orders, and overlooked the wife’s medical employment restrictions. After the High Court initially stayed the transfer order, the petitioner’s wife was terminated from her employment. This development was brought to the court’s notice and admitted by the petitioner’s counsel.
Statutory Analysis
- Petition invoked the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
- No specific interpretation or modification of statutory provisions or standing orders was undertaken; rather, the court assessed maintainability based on change in foundational facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment is authored solely by Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil; no concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment affirms the necessity of courts to consider supervening events (like termination of employment) that affect a petition’s maintainability.
- No new procedural guidelines or substantial procedural innovations are established.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court upheld the established principle that writs rendered moot by subsequent factual changes should be disposed of as infructuous.