JUDGMENT Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. (Oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure No.3 to the petition) issued by respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from UCO Bank, Branch Kausani (Almora) to UCO Bank, Branch Rudrapur (U.S. Nagar). 2. Facts, sans unnecessary details, are that petitioner was appointed on 16.3.1981 in the UCO Bank, Branch Nareman Point, Mumbai. In the year 1995, he was transferred to Rudrapur Branch and in the year 2005, he was transferred to Sethal (Bareilly). Thereafter, he was again transferred to Gadarpur (U.S. Nagar). On account of a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was transferred to Haldwani Branch and then in the year 2017, he was transferred to Kausani as Assistant Branch Manager, and since 29.7.2019, he is posted as the Branch Manager in Kausani Branch. Now, by the impugned order dated 09.07.2020, petitioner has been transferred to Rudrapur. 3. It is the case of petitioner that he is at the fag end of his service as he has attained 59 years of age, and he has been transferred without giving him any opportunity of tendering the options. It is also alleged in the petition that the petitioner has been transferred in violation of Clause 19 of the Transfer Policy which provides that three years before retirement as on 30th June, an officer would not be subjected to any interzone movement except on promotion or in exigencies of the bank. Hence this petition has been filed assailing the said transfer order. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.1, wherein, it is stated that the transfer of the petitioner has been made in accordance with the Transfer Policy. The petitioner was working on a sensitive post classified by the bank, and moreover, the transfer of the petitioner was an intra-zone transfer and not inter-zone transfer. It is also stated that clause 11.1 of the Transfer Policy is in fact applicable in case of petitioner which provides that all officers who are posted in sensitive post, as defined by the bank in accordance with CVC/government guidelines, shall be rotated every three years. Since the petitioner has completed his tenure of three years in the same branch i.e. Kausani, hence he has been transferred to Rudrapur. Since the petitioner has completed his tenure of three years in the same branch i.e. Kausani, hence he has been transferred to Rudrapur. It is also stated that the petitioner is a Scale-1 officer and he has been transferred to Rudrapur Branch which is a Scale-4 headed branch. Hence, the petitioner cannot be posted as the branch head of Rudrapur branch. Moreover, on transfer, his position/designation i.e. Scale-1 Officer has not been downgraded and he is posted on the same scale of pay. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire papers available in the file. 6. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been transferred to Rudrapur. It is an administrative decision taken by the bank on account of exigency of work. The transfer of the petitioner has been effected in accordance with Clause 11.1 of the Transfer Policy of the Bank which specifically provides that all officers working on a sensitive post, as defined by the bank, shall be rotated every three years. As the petitioner has completed three years at the present place i.e. Kausani, hence he has rightly been transferred by the impugned transfer order. The petitioner's transfer is an exigency of service and an employee is bound to serve wherever he is posted by the employer. The hardship pleaded is no ground for not transferring an employee, which is an ingredient part of the service. It is the prerogative of the employer to post his employees wherever their services are required in public interest. 7. Moreover, vide order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner was directed to submit all the medical papers to the respondent-Bank by making one more representation. Today, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank informs the Court that although the petitioner submitted an application but he did not annex therewith any medical document certifying his old age disease or heart disease. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner even did not comply with the order passed by this Court. 8. Keeping in mind the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that there is no scope to interfere with the impugned transfer order. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 29.07.2020 is hereby vacated. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off.