: 1 : wp-3617-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3617 OF 2011 Rajiv Ranjan Toppo .. Petitioner v/s. Unit Trust of India now known as UTI AMC Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Ashok Shetty a/w. Ms. Rita Joshi for the petitioner Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. Pallavi Dedhia i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Ms. Gitanjali Prabhu a/w Mrs. Kanchan Gupta i/b Vigil Juris for respondent no.2. ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 30th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel appearing for both sides at length. 2. In deference to the observations made by the Court at the time of hearing, the respondents through Counsel in all fairness states that the matter be disposed of without prejudice to the stand of the respondent that the transfer policy on which reliance is placed by the petitioner has : 2 : wp-3617-11=.doc lapsed. Further, the respondent would consider the representation of the petitioner regarding the petitioner’s choice / option of centre, where he may be considered for posting, subject to administrative exigencies, as may be obtaining at present. 3. It is not necessary for us to examine the contention of the petitioner that the stand taken by the respondent that the transfer policy has lapsed is incorrect. That question can be considered at the appropriate stage, as and when occasion arises. 4. In view of the assurance given by the respondent, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to give his option regarding the centre, where he intends to be transfered, to be given to the competent Authority i.e. Head of the Human Resources, within one week from today. The Appropriate Authority of the respondent company shall take decision thereon, as may be advised in accordance with law, which shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter. On receiving intimation from the respondent, the petitioner would join at the post specified in the proposed transfer order within two weeks from service thereof. That however, would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and option available to the petitioner to challenge the said decision after reporting to the : 3 : wp-3617-11=.doc transfered place, which challenge will be considered on its own merits, as and when occasion arise. 5. It is also placed on record that the respondent has agreed for this arrangement as a special case and not to be treated as precedent in future. Besides, the respondent agrees not only to consider the representation of the petitioner regarding choice of centre but also other representations regarding executive allowance and fixation of band expeditiously, if already not done. If some decision has already been taken on the latter representations, the respondent shall immediately communicate the same to the petitioner. 6. The above arrangement is accepted by the parties without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, as aforesaid. 7. Petition disposed of accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)