IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2009 MR. HANUMANT R. DHARMOJI ... Petitioner Versus THE GOA HOUSING BOARD THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Coram:- NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 23rd February, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is to retire in October, 2010. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inferior work is assigned to him at the transferred place, which is not suitable to the post which he is occupying. The work assigned to him at the Head Office at Panaji was of more responsibility and was serious in nature. Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that the Board has filed an affidavit and submitted that before the Petitioner retires he would be brought back. The Petitioner is not singled out or lowered in grade, pay scale and post. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Petitioner's grievances and objections may not be considered for setting aside order of transfer. It is settled position in law that transfer is an incident of service. Admittedly, the Petitioner is to retire in October, 2010. A statement has been made that the Petitioner would be brought back to the head quarters at Panaji before he retires from service. Prima facie, we do not find that the Petitioner is made to work in a lower post or grade. Prima facie, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is dismissed. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.