Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a Parchi Distributor in the respondent no. 3 Society. The challenge is to the transfer order dated 1st of November, 2012 on the ground of personal inconvenience as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reference of the writ petition no. 20719 of 2010 is absolutely erroneous, inasmuch as, the decision dated 22.4.2010 in the said writ petition was nowhere concerned with any transfer. The third submission is that the transfer order is without authority. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in similar cases of transfer where personal inconvenience was alleged this court has disposed of the writ petitions with liberty to the employee to file a representation before the Secretary respondent no. 2 for the redressal of such grievances. So far as the recital of the writ petition and the order passed is concerned, Sri Singh submits that was in relation to transfer of assets and providing of funds in order to facilitate the payment of certain employees and it does not relate to the issue of transfer of an employee. He further contends that so far as the transfer order is concerned the same has been passed by the competent State Authority as envisaged under Regulation 61( 7) of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Regulations, 1975 quoted herein under:- "61( 7). The transfer of Permanent Fourth Class such as, Peon, Orderly Peon, Mali, Chaukidar Armed Guard, Manure Mate, Sweeper, Cleaner, and Driver including Seasonal Fourth Class such as Parchi Distributors and Cyclist from one region to another region will be made by the State Authority." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the impugned order has been passed by the State Authority and which is in conformity with the Regulation 61( 7) aforesaid. The question of mentioning of the order passed in a writ petition is a mere surplusage and has no concern with the issue of transfer. The ground of personal inconvenience therefore can be represented by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 within three weeks from today. The same shall be considered by taking an appropriate decision within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.