CWP No.21738 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.21738 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2011 **** Eng.Major Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. . . . . 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. RK Handa, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. PS Thiara, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as a Senior Executive Engineer in the erstwhile Electricity Board now known as ‘Powercom’. He seeks quashing of the order dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure P4) transferring him from Mohali to Ropar. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been subjected to repeated transfers allegedly in violation of the Board’s transfer policy (Annexure P3). (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that the petitioner was transferred from Lalru to Mohali in public interest and it is for the same reason that he has now been transferred to Ropar. CWP No.21738 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the transfer being an incidence of service, it is not expedient for a writ court to interfere with the same unless there exist some strong reasons/circumstances. The transfer of the petitioner from Mohali to Ropar per se is not likely to cause any extreme hardship to the petitioner especially in view of the fact that the both places are in and around Chandigarh city where the family of the petitioner is stated to be settled. However, if the petitioner, on account of some special mitigating circumstances wants his continuation at Mohali, he shall be at liberty to make a representation highlighting such mitigating circumstances. The competent authority is directed to consider the representation sympathetically and keeping in view the policy guidelines. It would be appreciated if the petitioner’s representation is considered and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of its submission. (4). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 01.04.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge