JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Impleadment application No. 11746 of 2013 is allowed. Shri Dinesh Pandey Junior Branch Manager Almora, District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Vikas Bhawan, Almora, is impleaded as respondent no.3 in the writ petition. Let necessary amendment be incorporated during the course of the day. 3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the transfer order dated 03/04.10.2013 passed by respondent no.1. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is more than 59 year old and he is going to retire in the month of July, 2014. He submitted that it is a policy of the bank not to transfer any person at the verge of retirement and it is also provided in the policy that an employee who is going to retire in near future shall be placed at a place of his choice. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred the letter written by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies Uttarakhand directing the Secretaries of all the District Cooperative Bank in Uttarakhand not to transfer any bank employee during mid-session. It is also directed that if transfer is necessary, in that event necessary approval be obtained from the higher authority. 5. Shri K.K.Shah, learned counsel for the respondent District Cooperative Bank Ltd. submitted that Regulation 62 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees, Service Regulations, 1975, provides that the employee shall be at the disposal of the bank during such hours and such place as he may from time to time be directed. He submits that transfer is exigency of service and every employee should join at his transferred place. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (115) FLR 363 Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P and others. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the transfer is an exigency of service and should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction unless order is mala fide or prohibited under rules or authority passing it is not competent to do so. The facts of this case are different from the case referred. In the present case the bank has a policy that a person about to retire will not be transferred. The facts of this case are different from the case referred. In the present case the bank has a policy that a person about to retire will not be transferred. There is nothing in the transfer order which shows that there was any urgency to transfer the petitioner during mid-session. Learned counsel for the respondent then referred the judgment passed by Allahabad High Court in the case of Rahul Purwar and State of U.P. and others reported in 2008 (119) FLR 926 and submitted that the petitioner may make representation before the appellate authority and his representation shall be decided in accordance with law. In the judgment referred by the respondent, the High Court was dealing with the matter where allegation of the petitioner was that the place where he was transferred, there was no such post and that he was compelled to work under his juniors and that order of transfer was without jurisdiction. The facts of this case are entirely different. 6. Considering the fact that petitioner has completed 59 years of service and less than one year of service is left and also considering the fact that there is an order of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Uttarkhand to the respondent bank not to transfer any employee during mid-session without approval, I stay the transfer order (so far same relates to the petitioner) during the pendency of writ petition. 7. List this petition after six weeks. By that time, respondent no.1 and 2 may file counter affidavit. 8. Issue notice to the respondent no.3 returnable within a period of six weeks. Stay Application No. 11573 of 2013 stands disposed of. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, within 48 hours, on payment of usual charges.