HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13907 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.08.2011 **** Pritam Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & 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. NK Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is working as Technical Gr-I (Mechanic) in the Punjab Roadways. He is due for retirement w.e.f. 31.03.2013. Vide the impugned transfer order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P1), the petitioner has been transferred from Ludhiana to Amritsar. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (2). It is true that that the transfer is an incidence of service and ordinarily this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the same, however, it appears that the petitioner wants to settle down at Ludhiana after his retirement and consequently the impugned transfer order according to him is likely to cause hardship to him and his family. CWP No.13907 of 2011.doc - 2 – In my considered view the question of hardship is also required to be gone into by the competent authority. (3). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioner for his retention at Ludhiana till he retires on attaining the age of superannuation, sympathetically and/or adjust him at some nearby place. (4). Appropriate orders to this effect shall be passed as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (5). Till then, operation of the impugned transfer order (Annexure P1) shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Ludhiana. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 03.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2