JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.2000 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2841/2000, wherein Sri Narayan (appellant) sought direction to (1) quash order date. 12/13.5.2000 (Ann. 5) transferring him from Agricultural Research Station Durgapura (Jaipur) to Sub Station at Nagaur, (2) release his salary for April & May 1997 with interest @ 18% per annum, (3) release r s annual grade increment w.e.f. 1993 so also to carry out pay fixation consequent upon his promotion from Class IV servant to the cadre of LDC's besides maintaining his seniority in consonance with directions under the Award passed by the Labour Court on 25.2.1986. 2. On 28.6.2000, the learned Single Judge had issued show cause notice on writ petition to the respondents, who filed reply to the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that in view of the detailed reply filed on behalf of the respondents neither any mala fide can be inferred nor even otherwise any interference is called for in matters pertaining to transfer of employees under its writ jurisdiction. Hence this Special Appeal. 3. We have heard Shri J.P. Sharma learned counsel for the appellant on admission. During the course of hearing, Shri Sharma contended that while the appellant was on leave since 20th May, 2000 but consequent upon his resumption on 6.6.2000, he was not allowed to attend office by the respondent No. 2 on the pretext that as he stood transferred and had been relieved to join at new place of posting and since he had not reported for duty in compliance with the said order, a copy of transfer and relieving order could not be furnished to him. 4. Shri Sharma also contended that when the appellant was posted vide order dated 24.4.97 (Ann. 1) at Agriculture Research Station Durgapura (Jaipur) from its Sub Treasury, he was asked to work in Agronomy Section from 22.10.97 by order dated 21.10.97 (Ann. 2) but he was not handed over any charge and rather he was left to lurch on street despite a representation dated 18.3.98 (Ann. 3). As per Shri Sharma, representation (Ann. 1) at Agriculture Research Station Durgapura (Jaipur) from its Sub Treasury, he was asked to work in Agronomy Section from 22.10.97 by order dated 21.10.97 (Ann. 2) but he was not handed over any charge and rather he was left to lurch on street despite a representation dated 18.3.98 (Ann. 3). As per Shri Sharma, representation (Ann. 3) has caused prejudice in the mind of the respondent No. 2 because the respondent No. 2 has vested interest in not allocating the work to the appellant ignoring his past services. The learned counsel further contended that the respondent No. 2 has been bent upon to harass the petitioner because of the prejudice generated in connivance with his blue eyed and interested persons which has resulted in withholding of (a) annual grade increment since 1993, (b) fixation of pay and (c) seniority consequent upon his promotion in the cadre of LDC so also in transferring him from Jaipur to Nagaur by the impugned transfer order, inasmuch as his pay for April & May, 1997 has not been released in an arbitrary manner without declaring such period as authorised absence from duty. 5. In order to examine the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we have carefully perused the writ petition so also the reply filed by the respondent University. It is an admitted position that right from the beginning of his service as casual labour from the year 1978, where after upon his appointment as Class IV servant by order dated 24.6.87 (Ann. R. 1/1), the appellant remained posted at Jaipur till May, 1992 when he was shifted to Bikaner and thereafter when he was promoted to the post of LDC on 5.1.95, he was posted at Dholpur but on his request he was transferred to Jaipur on 9.7.96 and since then he remained posted at Jaipur till impugned transfer order (Anr. 5) was issued on 12.5.2000. It has been the case of the respondent University that in the initial appointment order of the appellant (Ann. R.1/1) it was emphatically stipulated that he is liable to be posted elsewhere in Rajasthan and his designation can be changed whenever occasion so arises and that no representation dated 18.3.98 (Ann. 3) was presented, rather it was manipulated by the appellant to support his case in the writ petition for cancellation of transfer order. 6. R.1/1) it was emphatically stipulated that he is liable to be posted elsewhere in Rajasthan and his designation can be changed whenever occasion so arises and that no representation dated 18.3.98 (Ann. 3) was presented, rather it was manipulated by the appellant to support his case in the writ petition for cancellation of transfer order. 6. In reply to writ petition, the respondent University has taken an unequivocal stand that the transfer order was issued for the reason of administrative exigency on 12/13.5.2000 and the appellant was relieved on 20:5.2000 to join at Nagaur but he refused to accept the transfer and relieving orders despite those having been sent through peon and also by registered AD post at his address, as is evident from peon book entry dated 22.5.2000 (Ann. R.1/2) endorsements made on AD/envelop by the postal authorities on 22.5.2000, 29.5.2000, 2.6.2000 (Ann. R.1/4), 20.6.2000 (Ann. R.1/5), which shows that the appellant avoided service of the transfer/relieving orders (Ann. 5). The law is well settled that whenever service of a document is avoided by the addressee, the knowledge of its contents is presumed. In his rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent University, the appellant failed to controvert the assertion of the University as to avoiding the service of the transfer/relieving orders, by producing any cogent evidence in rebuttal. 7. Contrarily, the respondent University placed reliance upon a copy of Award dated 26.3.1997 (Ann. R.1/6) passed by the Labour Court on an application filed under Section 33C(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the Labour Court held that the appellant was not entitled to pay on the principle of equal pay for equal work for the period between September, 1981 to 12.1.86 thereby there remained nothing outstanding for being assessed Under section 33C of the Act. However, the Labour Court made it clear that the appellant is left free to raise an industrial dispute for settlement of his claim in accordance with law. 8. Alongwith rejoinder, the appellant had produced copies of his representations dated 18.12.96 (Ann. 7), 26.4.97 (Ann. 8), 15.1.98 (Ann. 12) besides orders dated 23.10.97 (Ann. 9) & 2.12.97 (Ann. 10) of the respondent University to show that his claims for pay fixation, grant of annual grade increment and seniority have been pending adjudication since then. According to the orders (Ann. Alongwith rejoinder, the appellant had produced copies of his representations dated 18.12.96 (Ann. 7), 26.4.97 (Ann. 8), 15.1.98 (Ann. 12) besides orders dated 23.10.97 (Ann. 9) & 2.12.97 (Ann. 10) of the respondent University to show that his claims for pay fixation, grant of annual grade increment and seniority have been pending adjudication since then. According to the orders (Ann. 9 & 10) salary dues for April & May, 1997 was pending settlement as on 23.10.97 for want of Last Pay Certificate and the claim of annual grade increment for the year 1993 was pending for want of prescribed format with service book which was called for by the Director of the respondent University from its Assistant Director. The prescribed format was required to be submitted by the appellant, which he failed to produce. In reply, respondent University submitted at page 12 that if the appellant is entitled to any legitimate right of annual grade increment or pay fixation the University would certainly grant him in accordance with the service rules if he submits requisite information & documents as required in support thereof. Similarly at page 14, the respondent University reiterated that if the appellant is entitled to any salary for April & May, 1997 then he may file representation in accordance with law after complying with all requirements before the competent authority of the University which will be considered. 9. In view of the facts & circumstances, appearing from the pleadings of the parties on record, in our considered view, it is explicitly clear that the grievances raised in the writ petition as well as special appeal involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it can reasonably be inferred that grievances of the appellant are pending consideration before the respondent University for want of requisite documents or information which have not been furnished either by the appellant or by the University's officials inasmuch as appellant may have resorted to legal remedy available to him for raising an industrial dispute as per liberty given by the Labour Court in its order dated 26.3.97 (Ann. R.1/6) for the grievance raised in his application filed Under section 33C(2) of the Act, or even otherwise for other relief with regard to alleged withholding of (a) salary for April & May 97(b) pay fixation (c) grant of annual grade increment & seniority, for which this Court deems it just to direct the University to consider and decide appellant's representation expeditiously so as to resolve outstanding pending grievances, if any, within reasonable time. 10. As regards impugned transfer, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, because the transfer is an incidence of service inasmuch as impugned transfer of the appellant was as a matter of administrative exigency in public interest and not in violation of the guidelines of the University as per the Transfer Policy as approved by the respondent University for its staff under its meeting held on 23.2.98. As per clause 3 of the transfer guidelines, the employees working in a particular section of a unit should not be allowed to continue to work on the same post for more than a period of three years. Clause 8 of the guidelines also provides that immediate transfer of an employee should be affected on a complaint or request of Head of Institution for better work environment. Clause 12 of the guidelines gives relaxation of powers to the Vice Chancellor and according to it, in relaxation to the above guidelines the Vice Chancellor may transfer any employee in the interest of the Institution or University. 11. The appellant failed to establish as to which of guidelines approved by the University in meeting held on 23.2.98 conveyed by letter No. E1 ( ) Estt./ADR/2379 dated 30.5.98 by Associate Director Research Rajasthan Agricultural University to Section In charge ARS Durgapura (Jaipur), have been violated inasmuch as he also failed to, establish any mala fides on the part of the University officials and that apart, on account of non decision on representations alleged to have been submitted by him for redressal of his grievances if any, pending before respondent University in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no mala fide or arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents for having transferred the appellant. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contentions as advanced by the appellant's counsel for interference in the impugned order of learned Single Judge or to quash the impugned transfer order. 12. As a result of above discussion, this special appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed summarily. However, in the interest of justice, in case the appellant submits his detailed representation with reference to earlier one to the respondent University, its Registrar or the competent authority shall consider the same and decide it in accordance with relevant service rules within three months from the receipt thereof so as to resolve and redress his grievances referred to in his writ petition except transfer matter. 13. A copy of this judgement be sent to the respondent No. 1 University for compliance.Appeal Dismissed With Above Directions. *******