ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the respondents, whereby, the petitioner has been temporarily transferred from Central State Farm ('CSF') Sardargarh to CSF Raichur (Karnataka) for a period of three months. 2. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Tractor Driver was transferred from CSF Hisar to Sardargarh (Rajasthan) by order dated 13.7.2016. Whereafter, by the impugned order, he has been temporarily transferred to Raichur. Several submissions have been made in the writ petition questioning the action of the respondents on the ground of alleged bias on account of petitioner's trade union activities, the fact that petitioner is due to retire within two years and that he being a low paid employee is sought to be transferred about 2,500 k.m. away from the place of present posting. 3. A response has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that the reason for petitioner's temporary transfer is indicated in the order dated 26.10.2017 itself, wherein, on account of urgent requirement of drivers at CSF Raichur for preparing the field before losing moisture of upper crust of soil and to cope-up with work on priority, the petitioner was transferred temporarily for a period of three months. 4. It is further indicated that on account of the fact that the requirement keeps on arising at different farms on temporary basis, the employees are regularly temporarily transferred by the respondents from once farm to another farm and, therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner have no substance. 5. Submissions have also been made that the nature of petitioner's job is such, wherein, the same is transferable anywhere in the country and only on account of the distance between two farms, the same cannot give rise to any right to the petitioner to stay back at the place of present posting and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents were called upon to indicate as to how many persons have been transferred to Raichur and pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed indicating various orders passed from time to time pertaining to temporary transfer of employees for the purpose of undertaking the temporary need having arisen at a particular station. 7. 7. It may also be noticed that the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 (Annex.5) was stayed by this Court by order dated 18.11.2017. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It cannot be said that the respondents don't have the power/jurisdiction to transfer an employee temporarily from one farm to another farm, which temporary transfer is need-based and from the material, it is apparent that the said practice of temporary transfer is quite prevalent with the respondent- Corporation and on account of a temporary transfer, the validity of order cannot be questioned. 10. So far as the allegations of malafides etc. are concerned, the same is leveled in the petition by merely producing two orders that also without any further material in this regard, which cannot form the basis for such allegations. 11. However, it is apparent that the order dated 26.10.2017 was passed transferring the petitioner for a period of three months, which period is going to expire on 25.1.2018, the said order was stayed by this Court on 18.11.2017 and as the petitioner was sought to be transferred on account of urgent requirement, which requirement on account of the stay granted by this Court, would have been fulfilled by the respondents appropriately. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the order of temporary transfer dated 26.10.2017 (Annex.5) has lost its efficacy, the same is set aside leaving it open for the respondents to pass appropriate orders, in case, any requirement arises in future. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.