JUDGEMENT : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 & 3. None has appeared for the respondent no.1. 2. By filing this writ petition, the transfer order dated 15/01/2025, by means of which, the writ petitioner, who is working as Deputy General Manager (DGM) (HR) under the North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (NEEPCO) and presently posted in the Assam Gas Based Power Station (AGBPS), NEEPCO Ltd. at Bokuloni, Dibrugarh, Assam, was transferred and posted as HOP, PHPS, Doimukh, has been put under challenge. 3. The case of the writ petitioner, in a nutshell, is that she has been residing at Duliajan along her husband, who is an employee of Oil India Limited, Duliajan, Dibrugarh (another Government of India Enterprise) along with her two minor daughters, one aged about 11 years and other about 6 years. Both the daughters are studying in the Delhi Public School at Duliajan. It is the case of the writ petitioner that if she is posted as HOP, PHPS, Doimukh, then in that event, she would be compelled to part with her family consisting of her husband and two minor daughters, who are school going children. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also stated that she is suffering from severe diseases such as Diabetic and Hypertension with bleeding problem and there is no proper medical facility at Doimukh, which may result into serious health hazard for her. On these twin grounds, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the impugned transfer order. 4. On 05/02/2025, this Court had passed an interim order suspending the operation of the transfer order dated 15/01/2025 qua the writ petitioner. On receipt of notice in connection with the writ petition, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have appeared and filed counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed her rejoinder. 5. While arguing in favour of the grounds taken in the writ petition, Mr. On receipt of notice in connection with the writ petition, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have appeared and filed counter affidavit. The petitioner has also filed her rejoinder. 5. While arguing in favour of the grounds taken in the writ petition, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 12/06/1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) to submit that it is the policy of the Government of India to provide same station posting to husband and wife so as to ensure that their family life is not disturbed. Even as per clause 11.6 of the NEEPCO Transfer Policy, submits Mr. Ahmed, the request for same station or nearby place of posting of spouses is required to be considered sympathetically. However, despite the aforesaid policy of the Government of India and notwithstanding the representation submitted by the writ petitioner to review her transfer order, the same has been rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 24/01/2025 without, however, assigning any proper reason. 6. Mr. Ahmed has further submitted that as per clause 11.3 of the NEEPCO Transfer Policy, Diabetic and Hypertension are treated as “Special Diseases” and, therefore, the NEEPCO Medical Attendance Rules itself provides that employees suffering from such diseases ought to be deployed at a location of their choice or nearest to the location where treatment of the “special diseases” are available. Notwithstanding the same, the respondents have rejected the request made by the petitioner, thus going against the policy of the institution itself. It is also the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that on an earlier occasion, his client had in fact foregone promotion just for being with the family on account of the fact that a promotion is usually associated with an order of transfer. Despite making such personal sacrifice and notwithstanding the compelling grounds urged by the petitioner, the respondents have failed to consider her prayer in the light of the transfer policy of NEEPCO. As such, submits Mr. Ahmed, this is a fit case for the Court to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. 7. Responding to the above, Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondent nos. As such, submits Mr. Ahmed, this is a fit case for the Court to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. 7. Responding to the above, Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 submits that the petitioner has spent more than 16 years in the present place of posting and it was on the request of the petitioner she was allowed to continue at Dibrugarh for all these years only to ensure that her family life is not unduly disturbed. However, at present, there is dire need of Officers at the level of DGM at the HOP, PHPS, Doimukh, so as to run the institution and unless an Officer at the level of DGM is posted at Doimukh urgently, it will seriously affect the functioning of the Organisation. 8. Mr. Senapati further submits that Doimukh is the nearest place of posting from Dibrugarh and since there is a well established residential township at Doimukh, located inside a gated colony, which not only has proper facilities of schooling for the children but also adequate facility of health care and medical treatment, there is no justifiable ground for the petitioner to refuse to go to Doimukh. 9. Referring to the policy decision of the Government of India (DoPT) dated 12/06/1997, Mr. Senapati submits that the said circular is applicable only in those cases where the husband and wife are the employees of the same organisation and not in a case of this nature where both of them are serving in two different organisations. Moreover, according to Mr. Senapati, the guidelines of DoPT are meant for Government of India Departments and not for companies, such as NEEPCO, which has its own set of Rules/guidelines for transfer and posting of the employees. 10. In so far as the plea regarding “special diseases” suffered by the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Senapati submits that those diseases have been classified as “special diseases” only for the purpose of reimbursement of medical expenses, inasmuch as, diabetes and hypertension are common diseases which can be easily taken care of by the medical facilities available at Doimukh. 11. I have considered the arguments made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 12. 11. I have considered the arguments made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 12. At the very outset, it is to be noted herein that there is no controversy about the fact that the job of the writ petitioner is transferable in nature. Therefore, transfer from one place to another was a natural incident of service, which the petitioner cannot refuse to abide by as per the conditions of her service. There may be cases where due to genuine hardship or difficulty faced by an employee, a request for reconsidering the order of transfer may have to be sympathetically considered by the departmental authorities and the difficulties suitably resolved, depending on the options available at the hands of the authorities. However, the question that would arise for consideration in this case is as to whether, the present is a case where the impugned order of transfer deserves to be quashed by this Court only on the ground of hardship ? 13. It may be noted herein that it is not the case of the writ petitioner that the impugned transfer order contravenes any of the conditions of her service or that the same had been issued with the mala fide intent to cause loss and injury to her. The grounds projected by the petitioner, reduced to their essence, would amount only to the question of hardship due to the possible disturbance caused to her family life if the transfer order is given effect to. The stand of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 is that the petitioner has been allowed to continue in the same place of posting for 16 years so as not to disturb her family life but at present, her service is required at Doimukh for the institutional interest. Since there is nothing to dispute the said assertion of the Department, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to interfere with such transfer order merely on the ground of hardship, more so, when there is no alternative nearer place of posting available for the authorities to transfer and post the petitioner. 14. 14. It is no doubt correct that when there is scope and opportunity of posting the husband and wife at one place of posting, attempt should always be made by the model employer to post the spouse at the same place or at-least in the nearby places, so as to ensure that family life of the employee does not get disturbed and the children do not suffer unduly on account of the two parents living separately in two different locations. However, there cannot be an absolute rule prompting the Court to interfere with each and every order of transfer only on the ground of hardship faced due to posting at place away from the spouse, by completely ignoring the inconvenience and the genuine problems that may be faced by the employer/organisation. In such matters, a balanced approach is always called for. If the administrative reasons cited by the Department is found to be genuine and the Court finds that the transfer and posting of the petitioner is reasonable in a given fact- situation, then in that event, the Writ Court would be loath in interfering with such order of transfer and leave the matter to the discretion of the employer. 15. For the reasons stated herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the present is not a fit case for the Writ Court to interfere with the impugned order of transfer.Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, subject to her joining at Doimukh, in terms of the impugned transfer order, it will be open for the Writ Petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the respondent authorities ventilating her grievance, if any, in the matter. If such a representation is submitted by the writ petitioner, the same be considered objectively and disposed of by a reasoned order within 30 days of receipt of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.