IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.13310 of 2006 Dated: June 30, 2006 Between: N.C.S. Malleswara Prasad, S/o. N. Subba Rao, aged 43 years, working as Manager in SBH Branch, at SVIMS University, Tirupati, resident of 1-5-581, Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Chittoor, A.P. … Petitioner And State Bank of Hyderabad, represented by Managing Director, Gun Foundry, Hyderabad, A.P., and three others. ... Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the representation/appeal of the petitioner dated 31-05-2006 to modify the order of transfer dated 31-05-2006 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Petitioner, initially appointed as cashier-cum-clerk in the respondent bank at Chittoor branch, was later promoted and transferred to Tirupathi main branch and has been discharging duties as Manager. It is the case of the petitioner that his son and father are suffering from Epilepsy, Carcinoma Stomach Cancer respectively and they need proper care and regular medication. It is also stated that his wife is also working at Tirupathi. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 issued transfer order dated 06-05-2006 transferring the petitioner from Tirupathi to SBH, Tanuku. His grievance is that though he submitted appeal/representation dated 31-05-2006 to the first respondent explaining his difficulties to join at Tanuku, the place to which he was transferred from Tirupati, due to his family problems, no action whatsoever has been taken. 3. The impugned order has been passed having regard to administrative exigency and it is always open for the respondents to effect transfers of the employees to the place where there is requirement of employees. This Court normally does not interfere with such matters. But, it is to be seen that the petitioner has made a representation dated 31-05-2006 expressing his family problems and his inability to join at Tanuku. It appears that no orders have been passed on the said representation, yet. 4. In that view of the matter, without going into merits of the claim of the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 31-05-2006 for modification of the order of transfer dated 06-05-2006, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from today. 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. June 30, 2006 MRR