IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.W.P. No.17289 of 2011 Date of Decision:15.09.2011 Er. Major Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) This petition has been filed for quashing of impugned transfer Annexure P-3 vide which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the speaking order has not been passed in spite of issuing direction by this Court and the impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Learned counsel further submits that other employees are staying on their work places for the last many years and they have not been transferred. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred frequently without any sufficient reason and his transfer is contrary to the guidelines mentioned in the policy. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the documents available on file. Earlier petition bearing C.W.P. No.21738 of 2010 filed by the petitioner, was disposed of with a direction to decide his representation and C.W.P. No.17289 of 2011 -2- to consider the case sympathetically and if some mitigating circumstances are there, then a speaking order is to be passed. While disposing of that petition on 01.4.2011, the following directions were issued:- “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.” The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that other employees are working on their places for the last many years and order has been passed without application of mind is not a ground to challenge the frequest transfer order of the petitioner. Although the obser-vation has been made in the order passed on 1.4.2011 that the transfer of the petitioner C.W.P. No.17289 of 2011 -3- is from Mohali to Ropar and is not likely to cause any extreme hardship to the petitioner as both the places are closer to Chandigarh and moreover, the distance of transfer place is not so much that this Court should interfere in the transfer order. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any mitigating circumstances for making out a case to interfere in case of transfer matter. No ground is made out to interfere. This petition being devoi d of any merit is dismissed. September 15, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE