JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, petitioner Gopal Narain Singh is seeking to challenge the order dated 6th November, 1987, whereby he was transferred from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jaipur, to the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ajmer of the Rajasthan State Co-operative Land Development Bank (for short, the respondent Bank). The petitioner has also prayed for the pay in the pay scale and grade of Regional Manager. 2. The facts leading to this writ petition briefly stated are these: 3. The petitioner had joined the service with the respondent Bank on 25th January, 1965 as a Clerk. In the year 1969, he was promoted as Office Assistant and further in the year 1973, he got further promotion as Inspector. The post of Inspector in the service of the respondent Bank was re-designated as that of Deputy Manager with effect from 1st January, 1980 and consequently. the petitioner was re-designated as Deputy Manager. The case of the petitioner is that, though substantively he has been holding the post of Deputy Manager, but he is working on the post of Regional Manager since 30th December, 1983. The revised pay scale for the post of Deputy Manager is Rs. 955-1030, with effect from 1st March, 1980. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being paid the salary in the pay scale for the post of Deputy Manager, though he, in fact, is entitled to be paid his salary in the grade of Rs. 1160-2110, which is the revised pay-scale for the post of Regional Manager. The contention of the petitioner is that he is discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the other Regional Managers in the service of the respondent Bank; but he is being paid the salary for the lower post and thus there is wholesome breach of the principle of equal pay for the equal work as enshrined in Act. 39 (d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Another grievence of the petitioner is that he has been transferred by an ordered dated 7th November, 1987, from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ajmer. Prior to his posting at Jaipur be was transferred from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office Jodhpur to the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jaipur by an order dated 7th October, 1986. Prior to his posting at Jaipur be was transferred from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office Jodhpur to the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jaipur by an order dated 7th October, 1986. The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer dated 7th November, 1987 on the ground that it has not been passed in public interest or in the interest of service but solely on the desire of respondent No. 2, Shri Ram Deo Mehria the then Minister of Co-operation, Government of Rajasthan Jaipur who wanted to see the ouster of the petitioner from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jaipur and his desire was actuated by extraneous consideration. Further allegations made by the petitioner are that Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank is headed by Shri Santosh Mehria as its Chairman. Shri Santosh Mehria is the son of Shri Ram Deo Mebria, respondent No. 2. He was elected to the post of Chairman in the year 1986. Shri Santosh Mehria on the strength of respondent No. 2 has been veilding extraneous influence in the working of the Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank and has been exerting pressure on the officials of the respondent Bank, including the petitioner, to reimburse the loans granted by the Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank. Further allegations are that Shri Subbash Mehria, nephew of respondent No. 2, is managing the agency at Sikar for supply of sprinklers for irrigational purposes. Similarly, another relation of respondent No. 2 Shri Jagdish Mehria is also running similar agency at Sikar. It is contended by this petitioner that Shri Santosh tviehrta after he was elected to the office of Chairman, distributed loans running into lacs of rupees for unapproved and sanctioned schemes for purchase of sprinklers at Panchayat Samiti, Dhod. The petitioner as Regional Manager objected to the grant of loans for unapproved and unsanctioned schemes by the Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Sikar. He was pressurised to sanction the reimbursement to the tune of about 7 lacs of rupees. However, the petitioner did not issue sanction for reimbursement of about 3 lacs of rupees. The petitioner protested and objected to the grant of loans for minor irrigation schemes which are not sanctioned and approved by NABARD. For construction of Market Yard at Fatehpur, Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. granted a loan of about Rs. 20 lacs. However, the petitioner did not issue sanction for reimbursement of about 3 lacs of rupees. The petitioner protested and objected to the grant of loans for minor irrigation schemes which are not sanctioned and approved by NABARD. For construction of Market Yard at Fatehpur, Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. granted a loan of about Rs. 20 lacs. The Sikar Bhoomi Vikas Bank wanted the reimbursement, but the petitioner did not approve it. It was afterwards at the instant; of the head office that the petitioner approved the same. The petitioner has further alleged that the Regional Office of Jaipur Region was provided with a vehicle (jeep) for official work, but in practice, the personal staff of respondent No. 2 used the vehicle for their personal purposes. The misuse of the vehicle was protested by the petitioner and when he failed to prevent the misuse, he surrendered the vehicle to the head office. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that looking to the objections raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 and his relations obviously felt that it would be difficult for them to get the sanction for various irregular loans distributed by them from time to time and, therefore they all conspired to get the petitioner transferred from the Regional Office, Jaipur. It may be stated here that under the jurisdiction of the Jaipur Region comes the Sikar Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank, Jhunjhunu Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank. Churu Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank and Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank. Each of these Banks operates in the particular districts through their branches operating at the root level. Zila Bhoomi Vikas Banks through their branches distribute agricultural loans to the land-holders for the development of the land, i.e. for construction of well purchase of pump-sets. sprinklers, threshers, tractors and also for food plantation etc. These Zila Bhoomi Vikas Banks are to distribute loans against the scheme which are approved and sanctioned by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NAB-RD). The loans given by the Zila Bhoomi Vikas Banks are reimbursed by the respondent Bank through its Regional Office controlled by the Regional Managers and the NABARD in turn refinances the respondent. 5. These Zila Bhoomi Vikas Banks are to distribute loans against the scheme which are approved and sanctioned by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NAB-RD). The loans given by the Zila Bhoomi Vikas Banks are reimbursed by the respondent Bank through its Regional Office controlled by the Regional Managers and the NABARD in turn refinances the respondent. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of his transfer dated 7th November 1987, on the ground that the order of transfer has been passed in compliance with the desire of respondent No. 2 and the real reason for the transfer is that respondent No 2 and his relations wanted to get rid of the petitioner from the office of the Regional Manager as they all considered him to be an obstacle in their functioning at various levels in the matter of disbursement of loans. It is contended that the order of transfer was neither in public interest nor it involves any administrative exigency. The order was clearly an arbitrary exercise of power and was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction to declare the order dated 7th November, 1987 to be unlawful and malicious and the further prayer is for a direction to respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner in the grade of Regional Manager with effect from 30th December, 1983. 7. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of. Respondent No. 1 has filed the return. In the reply, respondent No. 1 pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to be paid the pay in the grade of Rs. 1160-2010 simply on the ground that he was working as Regional Manager in the Regional Office. It is contended by respondent No. 1 that the salary for the post of Regional Manager is paid to such officers only who hold the appointment as Regional Manager. As regards the transfer, the various allegations levelled against respondents No 1 and 2 in the writ petition are denied. it is contended by respondent No. 1 that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on account of the desire of respondent No. 2. As regards the transfer, the various allegations levelled against respondents No 1 and 2 in the writ petition are denied. it is contended by respondent No. 1 that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on account of the desire of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has contended that the order of transfer was passed on administrative grounds and in the interest of the Bank. The petitioner was incharge of the regional office, Jaipur under whose jurisdiction there are four district primary land development banks viz. Sikar, Jhunjhunu, Churu & Jaipur. It is submitted in the reply by respondent No. 1 that there are large number of cultivators and it was felt that the petitioner was not able to cope up with the work. Out of the four district primary land development banks, three banks are having unrestricted loaning eligibility and yet the cultivators were not getting the loan despite the drought-prime conditions. Respondent No. 2 is an elected MLA from Sikar District. He was concerned with his own constituency being elected representative. He made inquiry from the Managing Director as to why the cultivators in the drought affected areas in Sikar Zila were not getting proper attention care and loaning facilities and be wanted to know as to who was officer concerned in this regard Respondent No. 2 was appraised of the facts and circumstances and he was informed that a change of the incharge of the Regional Office Jaipur with another officer was already under consideration. It was on the said information having been given to him he desired that if such a change was being considered the orders be issued that vary day. Respondent No. 1, thus, pleaded that beyond this limited extent, respondent No. 2 had nothing to do with the decision to transfer the petitioner and to post Shri Pyarey Lal Bhukar in his place. To meet the various allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. respondent No. 1 has pleaded in the reply that normally the procedures stated by the petitioner was followed. However, looking to the requirements, facts and exigencies loans are given by Bhoomi Vikas Banks in anticipation of the approval and sanction of the proposed schemes. It is stated that there are two types of loans, one is under normal programme and the other is with reference to a scheme. However, looking to the requirements, facts and exigencies loans are given by Bhoomi Vikas Banks in anticipation of the approval and sanction of the proposed schemes. It is stated that there are two types of loans, one is under normal programme and the other is with reference to a scheme. In normal loaning no approval or sanction is necessary and for loaning under the scheme loans can be given even under the proposed schemes It is also stated that Shri Santosh Mehria is the Chairman of Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank and, thus, there is no question of veilding extraneous influence simply because he is the an of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 his also stated that the reimbursement by the respondent Bank is permissible and for that purpose no procedure for extraneous influence is necessary. It is also stated that loans running into several lacs under the proposed schemes were even granted prior to the, election of Shri Santosh Mehria for the purchase of sprinklers in Panchayat Samiti Dhod. In view of the drought prone conditions, it was necessary to distribute loans and the petitioner himself sanctioned the reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 17 lacs As regards non-sanctioning of loans amounting to Rs. 3 lacs, respondent No. 1 has explained that it was a matter of opinion, but it has nothing to do with the case, so far as the transfer of the petitioner is concerned. It is further stated that the various objections raised by the petitioner were basically irrelevant and uncalled for because once the loan of Rs. 20 lacs had been sanctioned by the respondent Bank and a bond of Rs. 20 lacs had been executed, reimbursement had to be made as and when utilisation certificates were produced by the technical staff. In short, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the various allegations against the respondents are made by the petitioner to shield himself against his own in action. 8. As regards the surrender of vehicle, respondent No. 1 submitted that the vehicle was not surrendered but it was withdrawn by the head office to the pool of the head office so that it can be sent on requisition as and when needed. 9. 8. As regards the surrender of vehicle, respondent No. 1 submitted that the vehicle was not surrendered but it was withdrawn by the head office to the pool of the head office so that it can be sent on requisition as and when needed. 9. In reply to the return, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder In the rejoinder, the petitioner has admitted that in certain cases, looking to the requirements, facts and exigencies of the case loans could be given by the Bhoomi Vikas Banks in anticipation of the approval and sanction of the proposed scheme by the NABARD. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has pointed out that the order to transfer has been on account of extraneous consideration and malice and that the order of transfer suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness and is, thcrefcre, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also emphatically pleaded that there is no reason for respondent No. 1 today the salary to the petitioner as Regional Manager. 10. We have given the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition. We have also stated the case of the petitioner and the case of the respondent as pleaded by them in the writ petition and the written statement respectively. From the allegations and counter allegations it is clear that the petitioner raised certain objections in the matter of grant of loan or disbursement of the loan or in the matter of reimbursement of the loans. Equally it is true that after having raised the objections the petitioner himself on his own or on the advice of the head office sanctioned the reimbursement of the loan. As was the case with regard to the sanction and reimbursement of the loan of Rs. 17,00000/-. As regards the loans for the purchase of sprinklers, the respondent has clearly averred that the loans running into several lacs under the proposed scheme, were granted even prior to the election of Shri Santosh Mehria as Chairman in Panchayat Samiti Dhod Respondent No. 1 has also explained that on account of drought-prone conditions the loans should have been sanctioned. Under the proposed scheme, there also appears to be no lack of bona fides if a duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly expresses his concern about the lack of loan facilities in the drought affected area of his constituency. Under the proposed scheme, there also appears to be no lack of bona fides if a duly elected member of the Legislative Assembly expresses his concern about the lack of loan facilities in the drought affected area of his constituency. From the record, it is clear that the order of transfer of the petitioner was not initiated on the desire of respondent No. 2. When the order of transfer of the petitioner was already in process, respondent No. 2 desired only to expedite the same at the earliest on account of the circumstances which respondent No. 1 has pleaded in the written statement and a reference to which has been made above. Shri Santos' Mehria is a Chairman of Sikar Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank in his own right. There are no allegations against him as to in what manner he veilded exiraneous influence upon the petitioner. No grounds of mala fides have been alleged against Shri Santosh Mehria or Shri Subhash Mehria. We may state here that neither Shri Subhash Mebria nor Shri Santosh Mehria have been pleaded as a party to the writ petition, except the averments above against respondent No. 2 there are no specific allegations of mala fides levelled against respondent No. 2. In para 25 of the writ petition. the petitioner has pleaded various grounds to challenge the order of transfer dated 7th November, 1987. In none of the grounds, in subparas (a) to (f), allegation of mala fides have been levelled, except in sub-para (d) of para 25 of the writ petition, wherein the only allegation is that exercise of powers of transfer on desire of respondent No. 2 was clearly an act of mala fide exercise of power of transfer. In our opinion, this allegation stands fully explained in the reply submitted by respondent No. 1 and as discussed by us above. 11. As regards the judicial review of order of transfer the law is now well settled. Judicial review of an order of transfer is permissible. Transfer is an incident of service. The power vested in public body to transfer any official must be used honestly, bona fide and reasonably. An order of transfer like other administrative orders is generally passed for an administrative purpose, or for exigency of work, or in public interest and thus outside the purview of examination by a court of law. Transfer is an incident of service. The power vested in public body to transfer any official must be used honestly, bona fide and reasonably. An order of transfer like other administrative orders is generally passed for an administrative purpose, or for exigency of work, or in public interest and thus outside the purview of examination by a court of law. But if the order is passed for collectral purposes and mala fide, or passed in colourable exercise of power the same is liable to be challenged in a court of law; and it will be a fit case for the court to interfere. Equally it is true that it is not permissible to probe or enquire about the propriety, regarding exigency of service, as it includes a variety of factors, viz., suitability of the officer to the post, his past conduct and reputation his aptitude to the work, his methodology in the due discharge of his duties for fulfilment of the various objects for which the office is created 12. Now, turning to the facts, we are of the opinion that no case of mala fildes has been made and by the petitioner in the entire case. There are certain allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondents No. 1 and 2 and the counter-allegations made by the respondents against the petitioner. However, we do not want to probe into the various allegations as we are satisfied that there are no allegations of mala fides or arbitrariness on the part of respondent No. 1 in transferring the petitioner from the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Jaipur to the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ajmer. We are not satisfied that the transfer was effected solely on account of the desire of respondent No. 2. Thus, no case for interference in the order of transfer is made out by the petitioner. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that he is working on the post of Regional Manager since 30th December, 1983. The petitioner is, thus, discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the other Regional Managers in the service of the respondent Bank. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, it is admitted that the petitioner is working as incharge of regional office as Regional Manager. The petitioner is, thus, discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the other Regional Managers in the service of the respondent Bank. In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, it is admitted that the petitioner is working as incharge of regional office as Regional Manager. The contention of the respondent seems to be that the salary of the post of Regional Manager is paid to such officers only who hold appointment as Regional Manager. There is no merit in the contention of respondent No. 1. In (I) Surendra Siagh v. Engineer-in-charge, CPWD (1986 (l) SLR 436) , (2) Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of UP ( 1986(1) SCC 637 ) and (3) Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of Haryana (1987(iii) SVLR (1) 57) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that if the work done is similar, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is attracted. The Supreme Court has also laid down that it hardly matters whether an employee works on the post temporarily or otherwise in the instant case, it is proved that the petitioner is discharging the similar duties as are being discharged by a regularly appointed Regional Manager on the same post. 14. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India is attracted and thus the petitioner is entitled to get pay in the pay scale of Regional Manager. 15. In the premises aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The writ petition fails as regards the challenge to the order of transfer dated 7th November, 1987, whereby the petitioner was transferred from the post of Regional Manager. Regional Office, Jaipur to the post of Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ajmer, but the petitioner will be entitled to the pay in the grade of Regional Manager with effect from 30th December, 1983. We, therefore direct respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner the pay in the pay scale and grade of Regional Manager with effect from 30th December, 1983. The arrears shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall continue to get the pay in the said grade while working as Regional Manager. 16. The arrears shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall continue to get the pay in the said grade while working as Regional Manager. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Partly allowed. *******