HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13866 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 **** Sukhdev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. NP Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply/affidavit, at this stage. (2). The petitioner is working as District Controller, Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab and is presently posted at Gurdaspur. He is due for retirement for 31.03.2012. (3). The petitioner has now been transferred to Barnala. His case is that soon after his retirement he wants to settle down at Amritsar which is close to Gurdaspur. CWP No.13866 of 2011.doc - 2 – (4). Though it is true that that the transfer is an incidence of service and ordinarily no interference by this Court is called for, however, having regard to his remaining short tenure of service, I am of the considered view that the impugned transfer dated 25.07.2011 (Annexure P4) would unnecessarily uproot the petitioner at the verge of retirement and would cause undue hardship to him and his family. (5). The writ petition is accordingly allowed; the impugned transfer order qua petitioner is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Gurdaspur till his retirement unless there are very strong administrative reasons to be conveyed to him in advance, in public interest. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 03.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2