(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:6)(cid:16)(cid:13)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:6)

(cid:18)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:5)(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:8)(cid:6)

(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)CWP(cid:4)26586(cid:4)2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Bhupinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents (cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:23) (cid:8)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:24)(cid:19)ti(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:14)(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:13)(cid:27)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:9)(cid:6)(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:14)

(cid:16)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:29)(cid:31) (cid:23) Mr. Fatehjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

(cid:8)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:27)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:10)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:14)!(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:6)"(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:18)ti#

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari for setting aside the order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P(cid:4)4) passed by respondent No.3 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from SBS Nagar to Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner joined as a Peon on 13.05.2005 in the respondent(cid:4)Company at District Sri Muktsar Sahib. The work and conduct of the petitioner remained satisfactory throughout his service. The petitioner also earned promotions as and when it became due. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is with regard to his transfer orders. The petitioner was initially transferred to Malerkotla on 27.02.2024, thereafter, to Moga on 15.08.2024 and currently, he is working in District SBS Nagar and vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025 (Annexure P(cid:4)4), he has been transferred to Ludhiana from District SBS Nagar. The transfer of the petitioner at short interval without his completion of the minimum period prescribed in the policy is not sustainable. Further, he relies upon the transfer policy of 2018 (Annexure P(cid:4)5) and submits that policy mandates that Group A and Group B officers cannot be transferred before completing two years at a station. The transfer before completing two years at a station is only permissible in view of special administrative situations or due to the employees’ personal problem. Further, transfer of Group B employees, it requires the competent authority to record special reasons for transfer before completion of minimum two years of tenure. As such, vide the impugned transfer order (Annexure P(cid:4)4), the respondents are not only violated the two years minimum tenure but also not assigned any reasons for his premature transfer.

3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is resident of District Ludhiana and the transfer was made on the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has further pleaded in para 9 of the petition that his daughter is suffering from kidney problem. Earlier, he could not be posted in Ludhiana and transferred to SBS Nagar on account of non(cid:4) availability of of post at Ludhiana. The grievance raised by the petitioner is liable to be rejected that a transfer before the minimum tenure of two years is permissible on account of employees’ personal problems and it is only due to his representation considering his case sympathetically, he was posted in his own district, as such, there is no violation of the policy and it is not a case that frequent transfers of the petitioner was the result of malafide or arbitrary