1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9943 OF 2009 Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd. ....Petitioner vs Vijay Shankarrao Deshmukh. ....Respondent Ms. Rita K. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The Respondent challenged the order dated 13th October, 2008, transferring him from Nasik to the Head Office in Mumbai. Pursuant to the transfer policy, the Petitioner simultaneously transferred another clerk one Milind Patil from Mumbai to Nasik. The said Milind Patil reported to Nasik. The Respondent, however, on the very next 2 day, filed the complaint and obtained a stay on 16th October, 2008, against the transfer. The application was made without notice to the Petitioner. The stay has continued to date. In fact, in view of the ex parte stay order granted on 16th October, 1988, the Respondent has virtually succeeded in getting the entire relief against the transfer order. The Respondent has been in Nasik on this assignment since 5th July, 2007 i.e. for a period of two years. The Respondent has, over the years, succeeded in being posted at Nasik for seventeen out of the twenty years of his service with the Petitioner. The Respondent’s terms of employment expressly permit a transfer. 3. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioner had a grudge against him because he was a union member. The mere fact that he is a union member would not lead to an inference that the Petitioner has a grudge against him. There is not a single fact which has been pleaded which indicates any grudge or even cause for the Petitioner to hold any grudge against the Respondent. 4. The Respondent also alleged that his wife was ill and it would, therefore, be inconvenient for him to be transferred. The Industrial Court accepted this submission. The Industrial Court observed that the Petitioner did not consider this ground. 3 5. What the Industrial Court failed to note, however, was the fact that the Respondent had not even made any representation to the Petitioner in this regard. He filed the complaint on the very next date. He never approached the Petitioner. 6. It was then contended that the Respondent had earlier refused a promotion order on the ground of his wife’s health which was accepted by the Petitioner. 7. The mere fact that the Petitioner accepted the Respondent’s refusal of promotion would not by itself establish that the Respondent would not be able to work in any other place due to his wife’s illness. He has not furnished any details much less evidence of the illness. It is pertinent to note that he has, in fact, worked in places other than Nasik in the past, including at the Head Office and Vashi. The Respondent could always have made a representation to the Petitioner furnishing details which he did not do. 8. The Respondent has already enjoyed the benefit of this litigation to the fullest extent. As a result of the ex parte ad-interim order, the Respondent has remained in Nasik since 5th November, 2007. 4 He would, in any event, now be due for transfer. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The transfer order is upheld. 10. The operation of this order is stayed upto and including 20th February, 2010 to enable the Respondent to challenge this order.