It clearly reveals that the order of transfer was made prior to 31.3.2017 when petitioner had made a representation and that representation was considered by the authority. Therefore, the pleading of petitioner having not completed 3-years of service in terms of transfer policy dated 13.12.2013 is not made out. It is further submitted that petitioner was placed under suspension and his suspension has been revoked only on 6.2.2020. Thereafter, in interest of administration of respondents company, petitioner has been transferred to Howarah. It is further submitted and admitted by the petitioner that his transfer order has been duly stayed till 31.7.2020 in view of the prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic situation. In view of such fact after hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that petitioner's contention that he has been transferred prior to expiry of 3-years of mandatory tenure at Allahabad is not made out. If petitioner was accommodated on his previous place and posting on his representation dated 31.3.2017 then that does not mean that petitioner was not posted prior to 31.3.2017. In view of such facts, transfer order dated 13.3.2020 cannot be said to effected prior to terms and conditions of policy dated 31.12.2013. As far as pleadings of personal difficulties of the petitioner are concerned, transfer is an exigency of service and family is required to adjust to such exigency of service. Therefore, on account of personal difficulties of the petitioner, no indulgence can be shown in the transfer. In fact, law on transfer is well settled as has been laiddown in case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India as reported in AIR 1994 SCC (6) 98 , wherein it has been specifically held
