1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2010 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2009 Vijay Shankarrao Deshmukh. ... Appellant. V/s. Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Respondents. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Appellant. Mr. Ashok Shetty with Ms. Rita Joshi for the Respondents. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 31st MARCH 2010. P.C. :- Being aggrieved by an order dated 3rd February 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9943 of 2009, this Appeal has been filed by the Original Respondent – Employee. 2. The Appellant is working with the Respondent – Bank and he has been transferred by an order dated 13th October 2008 from Nasik to Head Office in Mumbai. The said order of transfer had been challenged before the Industrial Court by the Appellant. Implementation of the order of transfer was qstayed by the Industrial Court and, therefore, the 2 Respondent – Bank has filed the afore-stated Writ Petition challenging the said order. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal and thereby the transfer order dated 13th October 2008, whereby the Appellant has been transferred from Nasik to Mumbai has been made operative. The Appellant – employee has challenged the order passed in the Writ Petition. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates. Looking to the facts of the case, we find that the Appellant had worked for substantial time in Nasik. It is true that he had been transferred from Nasik to different places but every time, within a short period of 5 to 6 months he had been re- transferred to Nasik. 4. It is a well settled legal position that this Court normally should not interfere with the transfer orders. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, after considering the relevant facts rightly upheld the impugned transfer order. 5. In view of the facts of the case, in our opinion, this is not 3 a fit case where this Court should interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the transfer order. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant would like to make a representation to the Respondent – Bank so that he can be re- transferred to the same place. If such a representation is made, the said representation may be considered objectively by the Respondent – Bank as per its policy. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)