IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 13590 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 29th July, 2011. Navpreet Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate Versus 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] Notice of motion. Mr. B.S.Chahal, learned DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice. Keeping in view the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need of filing reply/affidavit by the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is working as a Naib Tehsildar. A month earlier he was transferred at Balachaur. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to Hargobindpur allegedly to accommodate the same person who was shifted from Balachaur. The wife of the petitioner is stated to be working as Lecturer in the Government College for Women, Sector 11 at Chandigarh. It is stated that the posting of the petitioner at far off place would cause extreme hardship to him and his family. Even though the transfer is an incidence of service and would not ordinarily warrant any interference by this Court, however, it appears that the petitioner has some mitigating circumstances which need to be sympathetically considered by the Competent Authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner [Revenue], Punjab to consider the desirability of posting the petitioner at a place near to Chandigarh. The appropriate orders, in accordance with the Government policy, shall be passed as early as possible and preferably within one month. Till then the operation of the impugned order dated 27.07.2011 [Annexure P-1] shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Balachaur. Disposed of. Dasti. July 29, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE