IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15783 of 2004 Between: G. Rama Devi W/o. M.S. Prasad, Golconda Grameena Bank, R/o. 9-30, Lalithanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND Golconda Grameena Bank, rep. by its Administrative Officer, Head Office, Hyd. .....RESPONDENT 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 Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in transferring the petitioner from the present working place i.e., Dilsukhnagar Main Branch to Aziznagar as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to continue the petitioner in the present working place i.e., Dilsukhnagar Main Branch. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.T.SRIKANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S. UDAYACHALA RAO (SC FOR SBI) The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER : The petitioner is working as a cashier cum clerk in the respondent-Bank since 1991. She was transferred to Hyderabad in July, 2001 and has been working at Hyderabad since then. The respondent passed the impugned order on 25-08-2004 transferring her to Aziz Nagar Branch. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said transfer order approached this Court through this Writ Petition seeking to declare the order of transfer passed by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. There is no illegality committed by the respondent in transferring the petitioner to another branch after allowing her to work for more than three years at Hyderabad. The petitioner contends that she is sick and her children are studying at Hyderabad. Therefore, it is necessary, that she should remain at Hyderabad. Her request for retention at Hyderabad was considered previously but now the respondent did not consider the same request before issuing the impugned order. I do not find any force in the contentions of the petitioner. Retaining a particular employee at a particular station is the discretion of the concerned authority. If there is any representation from the petitioner, the respondent may consider, the difficulties if any expressed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on such representation. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ Dr. G. Yethirajulu, J. Dt:12th October, 2004. Rns. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1.The Administrative Officer, Golconda Grameena Bank, Head Office, Hyderabad. 2. Two CD copies.