IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15674 of 2007 Between: Mr.Deepak Puri S/o.Late Bhagwan Puri R/o.2-2-22/1/A, D.D.Colony,Shivam Road Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Immulogicals Limited, Hyderabad 2 Mr.K.V.Balasubrahmaniaum S/o.Not known to the petitioner Indian Immulogicals Ltd., Road No.44, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad 3 Hemanth Goparaj S/o.not knwon to the petitioner C/o.Indian Immulogicals Ltd 4 G.Prabhakar Rao S/o.not known to the petitioner Indian Immulogicals Ltd., Hyderabad 5 Dr.Amrith Patel S/o.not known to the petitioner Indian Immulogicals Ltd., NDD Board,Post Boz-40 Gujarat .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1,2,and 4 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, and unconstitutional without any valid sanction and consequently hold that the transfer order dated 8.6.2007 is illegal, and void by setting a side thesame and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POTHAPRAGADA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE FOR R The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 8.6.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent-Managing Director on behalf of the 1st respondent- company, transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad to Ooty, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the transfer order as arbitrary and illegal. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted his resignation and the same was accepted by the 1st respondent-company and subsequently, the petitioner left the organization, and contended that the petitioner is entitled to certain benefits and the respondents may be directed to release his benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the petitioner questioned the order of transfer in the writ petition, the fact remains that he is said to have resigned from the company, which was also accepted by them. Now, he contends that he is entitled to receive certain amounts from the respondent-company as per the rules of the company and his eligibility. This Court cannot decide the question as to what amounts, the petitioner is entitled to, as per the rules of the company and his eligibility. Hence, no direction can be granted to the petitioner, except giving him liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 23rd June, 2009 bcj