K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The appellant is a Bank aggrieved by the directions in the impugned judgment, to disburse the salary of the writ petitioner, the respondent herein, during the period he had not been allowed to work and costs of Rs. 15,000/- since, the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court.

2. We heard Sri. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-bank and Sri. Sanjay Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in the appeal, the writ petitioner.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the respondent had refused to obey the order of transfer issued by his employer and had approached this Court. There was no stay order granted by this Court and despite that he remained away from service without joining in the transferred post. The learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition was piqued by the fact that the bank did not respond favorably to the various opportunities given to it, to make correctional measures and hence issued the above directions.

4. The learned Senior Counsel asserts that there could have been no correctional measures, since the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented himself from the employment.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, however, asserts that his initial transfer was on a request made to look after his aged mother. The transfer, however, did not fructify and he was relieved only after a long period. When he attempted to join at the transferred post, he was again shifted to another locality, thus frustrating the intention behind his transfer which was on a specific request made and on compassionate ground.

6. The admitted facts are that at the request of the respondent; made for reason of his mother’s illness, the competent authority transferred the petitioner to Barauli branch under the Muzaffarpur zone, subject to the conditions laid down in the order of transfer.

7. One of the conditions in the memorandum in duplicate, enclosed with the transfer order, produced as Annexure-3, in the writ petition was that the bank reserves to itself its discretion to transfer him back to Sarangpur branch within Ujjain Zone or any other branch as may be expedient, without assigning any reason for such transfer.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner could not join in the Barauli branch, since he was not relieved from the Sarangpur branch within the Ujjain Zone. Though the transfer was ordered by letter dated 18.11.2021, the respondent could submit his joining only on 07.02.2022. The Barauli branch on the said date was under administrative control of the Muzaffarpur Zone but very soon thereafter, the said branch fell under the newly constituted Siwan Zone; from April 2022.

9. The Dy. Zonal Manager, Muzaffarpur Zone issued an inter-office memorandum memo dated 09.02.2022, whereunder, the petitioner was posted to Narayanpur Chowk branch. The contention of the respondent was that the Dy. Zonal Manager of the bank could not have differed from the order of transfer issued by the Senior Manager (HR), Zonal Office, Ujjain. We cannot countenance the said contention.

10. We have already noticed the specific terms in the memorandum accompanying the transfer order, which was also agreed to by the respondent. Even while transferring the petitioner on his request, the bank reserved the right to transfer him back to Sarangpur branch or to any other branch as may be expedient. The exigencies of administration cannot be overlooked in the matter of transfer. The petitioner by an inter-zone transfer was posted at Barauli within the Muzaffarpur Zone. After he joined in Barauli branch, within the Muzaffarpur Zone, he was transferred to another branch in the very same zone by the Dy. Zonal Manager of the Bank. The respondent cannot argue that the Dy. Zonal Manager had no authority to overlook the transfer order of the Senior Manager (HR), of the Zonal Office, Ujjain. We reiterate that it was an interzone transfe