IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) of 879 of 2011 Pooran Singh Pangtey ….Petitioner Versus Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UCO Bank and others. ..Respondents Present : Mr. Mr. Bhatwat Mehara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Joshi, Advocate respondents. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D. C. Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner is an employee of UCO Bank who is presently working as Middle Management Grade Scale-I. He is aggrieved by transfer order dated 9.7.2011 by which an inter zone transfer has been made in case of petitioner transferring him from Almora (which falls in Meerut Zone) to Varanasi Zone. The principal ground of the petitioner is that as per the bank’s policy an employee, who is left with only 3 years service, will not normally be transferred. The petitioner alleges that in this case there has been a violation of the policy. The petitioner alleges other grounds as well, such as that he has already been given an inter zone transfer in the year 1996 and therefore at the present juncture such inter zone transfer is not liable to be made in his case when he is at the verge of retirement. The petitioner has also filed a representation pleading with the superior authorities to stay his transfer, inter alia, for the reasons already stated above. This representation dated 16.7.2011 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) is pending before the Chairman of the Bank i.e. respondent no.1. The bank is presently represented by Senior Counsel Sri Rajendra Dobhal who has fairly submitted that no interference be made by this Court as the representations are already pending which shall be decided within three weeks from today. On these submissions, as noted above, this Court directs respondent no.1 to decide the pending representations in view of the transfer policy as in force today. Till the representations are decided, the status quo as of the posting of the petitioner be maintained. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 22.7.2011 Kuldeep