JUDGMENT By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-P/1 dated 1.11.2001 by which the petitioner has been transferred from BHEL, Bhopal to BHEL, PS-SR, Chennai in his existing grade and pay with immediate effect: the order dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure- P/11) by which the representation of the petitioner against the said transfer order has been rejected and the order dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure -P/19) by which the petitioner has been relieved from Bhopal for joining at Chennai. The petitioner was appointed in the Respondent Company as Senior Development Engineer in its Corporate Research and Development Division, Hyderabad vide offer of appointment dated 30.6.1978 (Annexure-R/1) on the explicit condition that he would be posted to work at Corporate R & D Hyderabad Unit but was liable to be posted at the discretion of the Management to serve in any of the Company's Offices/units or any other public undertaking anywhere in India or abroad. The petitioner was, thereafter, transferred to Bhopal Unit and the petitioner has been serving in Bhopal Unit since 8.10.1990. The grievance of the petitioner is that as the petitioner is the President of the Executive Association, he has been penalised by the said transfer order. It is further the case of the petitioner that at Chennai the job requirement is unrelated with the field of specialisation of the petitioner and the claim of the respondents that transfer has been made on the request of the petitioner is false. The petitioner further contends that the petitioner's seniority will be adversely affected as the seniority is maintained unit-wise and the petitioner, on earlier occasions, had suffered on account of his transfers from one unit to other. The respondents have filed a Return. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition. It is alleged by the respondents that this transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Writ Petition No. 5773/2001 which was disposed of by order dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure-P/9) with the direction to decide the representation of the petitioner and since the representation of the petitioner has been decided by communication dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure-P/11), the direction of this Court stands complied with by the respondents and the relieving order passed on 6.7.2002 does not give rise to any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to seek any relief. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the transfer order is intended to penalise the petitioner as he is the President of BHEL Executives' Association. It does not appear from the record that there is any intention on the part of the respondents to chastise or penalise the petitioner for his being the President of the Association. It is to be noted that the transfer order was passed on 1.11.2001 and even after the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2001 in W.P. No. 5773/2001 and the -decision on the representation on 27.12.2001; no steps were taken by the respondents to immediately relieve the petitioner in pursuance of the said transfer order. Had there been any anxiety on the part of the respondents to immediately shift the petitioner from Bhopal, the respondents would have taken immediate steps atleast after the rejection of his representation to relieve him to ensure his departure from Bhopal. There are no circumstances on record from which inference of any malafide can be drawn. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has been sent for a job which is unrelated with his field of specialisation. A perusal of Annexure-P/11 shows that the transfer of the petitioner to PSSR was made due to organisational requirements. It was stated that PSSR was executing a large number of 500 MW thermal plants which were under various stages of execution -and some more orders were in the pipeline. There was a need for a person with knowledge and expertise in the area of steam turbine engineering for the Technical Services group in PSSR, for trouble free early completion of these projects. Petitioner's background and educational qualification coupled with his training in the area of Steam Turbines matched with the requirement and, therefore, it was decided to post him at PSSR, Chennai. This posting was purely on account of organisational requirement and not on any other consideration. The petitioner has also contended that his seniority would be adversely affected on account of the said transfer. The respondents have filed transfer policy as Annexure-R/2. From a perusal of Annexure-R/2, it is clear that unless selected for a higher position, the transfer of an employee is made in the same grade and pay as held at the time of transfer. Thus, there is a horizontal transfer. The respondents have filed transfer policy as Annexure-R/2. From a perusal of Annexure-R/2, it is clear that unless selected for a higher position, the transfer of an employee is made in the same grade and pay as held at the time of transfer. Thus, there is a horizontal transfer. As regards the promotion, the respondents have filed the policy as Annexure-R/9 which lays down that Senior Executive Cadre (E6 and above) is treated as All-Company Cadre. Promotion to and within this cadre is regulated on a company-wide basis and carried out by the Corporate Office on the recommendations of the Special Committee of EDs/Head of Units. In their Return, the respondents have submitted that as per the Company rules, employees in Dy. General Manager grade and above constitute Senior Executive Cadre and are treated as All Company Cadre and promotion to and within this cadre is regulated on company-wide basis and is carried out by the Corporate Office on the recommendations of the constituted selection committee. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner appears quite illusory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that at this distance of time, the need for transfer requires a review and the transfer order passed on 1.11.2001 has lost its purpose. The matter has been considered by the appropriate authority while considering the representation of the petitioner and passing the order dated 27.12.2001 and thereafter while passing the relieving order dated 6.7.2002. The petitioner has also filed application for extension of joining time. It does not, therefore, appear that the purpose for the transfer of the petitioner has become frustrated on account of the lapse of the period. Since there is nothing to suggest that the transfer is contrary to any rule or is actuated by malafide or contrary to any policy, I do not find any substance in this petition assailing the said transfer order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.