Back
1996 Supreme(AP) 108
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : D.H.NASIR, V.BHASKARA RAO
S.Jayanthi Bhandary - Appellant
Versus
Syndicate Bank, rep.by its Chairman and managing Director, Head Office, Manipal - Respondent
Decided On : 02-16-96
The transfer of employees is a managerial function and the courts cannot interfere unless the decision is mala fide or violates a professed norm or principle governing the transfer.
Headnote:
TRANSFER POLICY - SYNDICATE BANK - TRANSFER OF EMPLOYEES - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF TRANSFER POLICY - EXEMPTION OF LADY EMPLOYEES FROM REDEPLOYMENT TRANSFERS - APPLICABILITY OF TRANSFER POLICY TO ROTATIONAL TRANSFERS - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF TRANSFERS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of Syndicate Bank, challenged the transfer orders issued by the bank, contending that the orders were arbitrary, illegal, and violated the transfer policy of the bank. The petitioners, mostly women, argued that they were exempted from redeployment transfers under the bank's transfer policy and that the rotational transfers violated the policy. The bank, on the other hand, contended that the transfer policy had been revised, and the exemption for lady employees from rotational transfers had been withdrawn. The bank also argued that the transfer of employees was a managerial function and that the courts could not interfere unless the decision was mala fide or violated a professed norm or principle governing the transfer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transfer policy of the bank, as revised, did not violate the Sastry Award, which governed the transfer of bank employees. The court found that the bank had not acted mala fide in transferring the petitioners and that the transfers were made for administrative exigencies and to address vacancies in deficit pockets. The court also held that the transfer of employees was a managerial function and that the courts could not interfere unless the decision was mala fide or violated a professed norm or principle governing the transfer.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer policy of the bank violated the Sastry Award? 2. Whether the bank acted mala fide in transferring the petitioners? 3. Whether the transfer of employees was a managerial function and the courts could interfere?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transfer policy of the bank, as revised, did not violate the Sastry Award. The court found that the bank had not acted mala fide in transferring the petitioners and that the transfers were made for administrative exigencies and to address vacancies in deficit pockets. 2. The court also held that the transfer of employees was a managerial function and that the courts could not interfere unless the decision was mala fide or violated a professed norm or principle governing the transfer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, holding that the transfer orders issued by the bank were not arbitrary, illegal, or violative of the transfer policy of the bank.
( 1 ) THIS batch of writ petitions is filed by the employees of the Syndicate Bank, most of them are women employees, for a Mandamus declaring the order and decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter of the 4th respondent dated 8-11-1995 purporting to reject the representations of the petitioners issued by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to set aside the orders of transfer directed against the petitioners based on the circular of the zonal office, Andhra Pradesh, contained in Circular No. 35/95, dated 23-5-1995 and also for a declaration that the transfer policy contained in the said circular is ultra vires the powers of the Zonal Office being contrary to the transfer policy of the Head Office contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991 and consequently for a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners in the respective branches in which they were working prior to the impugned orders of transfer and to allow all service benefits to the petitioners including arrears of salary.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case that led to the filing of this batch of writ petitions are that the petitioners earlier challenging the order of transfer dated 1-6-1995 filed a batch of writ petitions, which were allowed by a learned single Judge. Against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the batch of writ petitions and setting aside the orders of transfer the respondents-Bank preferred W. A. No. 943 of 1995 and batch, wherein a Division Bench of this Court on 5-9-1995, while modifying the orders of the learned single Judge directed the petitioners to make separate and independent representations against the impugned orders of transfer and also directed the 1st respondent herein to give an individual consideration to the representations and to pass a speaking order thereon. The Division Bench also made observations with regard to the fairness that is expected to be maintained by the respondent-bank while passing orders on the representations assailing the validity of the orders of transfer. The petitioners are being continued at their respective branches of the bank till to-day, as the orders of the transfer dated 1-6-1995 are not given effect to in view of the orders of this Court.
( 3 ) AS per the directions of the Division Bench the petitioners submitted their respective individual representations to the first respondent assailing the orders of transfer and seeking retention in the respective branches of the Bank. The 1st respondent considered the representations of the petitioners and rejected them by order dated 8-11-1995.
( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that either the original orders of transfer dated 1-6-1995 or the orders of the 1st respondent dated 8-11-1995 do not contemplate substitution of one employee by another and therefore there is no contingency of another clerical employee substituting the petitioners pursuant to the impugned order dated 8-11-1995. According to the petitioners, despite the orders of transfer issued on 1-6-1995 they have been discharging their duties in the same branches of the bank in which they were working prior to the issue of orders of transfer till to-day. The petitioners, apprehending that the respondents may create disturbance and prevent them from continuing in the branches of the bank from which they are transferred, filed the present writ petitions.
( 5 ) THE petitioners, are the clerical staff and continuing as such in the bank. The Head Office of the respondent-bank has been formulating the service conditions of the employees which are to be uniformly applicable to all the employees irrespective of their place of posting. The relevant circular no. 88/91, dated 25-3-1991 has been issued by the Head Office relating to the subject of transfer of the clerical employees, which provides the transfer policy of the respondent-Bank. As per the transfer policy of the respondent-Bank the clerical c
