Back
2018 Supreme(Gau) 952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
NELSON SAILO, J.
Dinesh Kumar Mittal S/o. Gyan Chand Mittal - Appellant
Versus
Vijaya Bank (A Govt. of India Undertaking) and Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2691 of 2018
Decided On : 05-09-2018
M. Chanda, Adv., U.K. Nair, Adv.
The court emphasized the discretion of the bank in posting its employees based on service requirements and the right of the petitioner to make a choice posting as per the bank's transfer policy.
Headnote:
Transfer - Employee Rights - Circular Letter No. 18004 - Sections 4, 10 - The court discussed the Circular Letter No. 18004 dated 04.01.2018, which prescribed the criteria for transfer and posting of employees, and the right of the petitioner to make a choice posting. The court highlighted the provisions of the circular and the discretion of the bank in posting its employees based on service requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bank officer, sought transfer to specific locations as per a circular. However, he was transferred to a different location. The petitioner challenged the transfer as a denial of his right to make a choice posting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer to a different location was not arbitrary or unsustainable in law. However, the petitioner should not be deprived of his right to make a choice posting as per the bank's transfer policy.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of the petitioner to a different location amounted to an arbitrary action or denial of his right to exercise his option.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer was not arbitrary or unsustainable in law. However, the petitioner should be allowed to exercise choice posting in the next transfer season as per the bank's transfer policy.
Final Decision: The court did not interfere with the impugned transfer order but directed the respondent Bank to give the petitioner the opportunity to exercise choice posting in the next transfer season.
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. UK Nair, the learned Senior counsel for all the respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and presently serving in the Gauhati Regional Office of the Vijaya Bank in the post of Rajabhasa Adhikari as a Scale-III Officer of the Bank. The petitioner is posted at Guwahati in the aforesaid post since the month of June, 2016.
3. The respondent Bank with its Headquarter at Bangalore has been issuing circulars from time to time prescribing the criteria for transfer and posting of its employees including the Branch Manager/Officers. Vide Circular Letter No. 18004 dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure-3), the respondent Bank made available option from eligible Branch Managers/ Officers working in the Port Blair branches/ North East/ Hardship/ Disturbed area Branches who have completed two years of active services as on 31.05.2018 to apply for transfer to home State or place of choice subject to certain terms and conditions provided in the Circular. Amongst the various terms and conditions, mentioned, officials who are eligible are to exercise six options in order of preference and the same is to be considered depending on the availability of vacancies in the opted region. The option exercised in the prescribed format was to reach the Deputy General Manager of the Bank on or before 08.01.2018.
4. The petitioner submitted his option on 07.01.2018 in terms of the said Circular dated 04.01.2018 giving his option for transfer to the Regional office in the Delhi, Meerut, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Ludhiana and Pune in order of preference. However, contrary to his option, the petitioner was transferred to the Regional Office at Kolkata vide a common transfer order dated 17.04.2018 (Annexure-6). Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation though proper channel on 19.04.2018 to the respondent No.2 seeking reconsideration of his transfer as per the preference submitted by him. While the petitioner was anticipating the respondent Bank to modify the list of transfer by acting upon his representation, he was surprised to learn that on 27.04.2018, although certain modification of the transfer orders were made but his name did not figure in the list. Thus, being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. S Dutta, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have been transferred to the place of his choice and not to Kolkata. He submits that the impugned transfer order dated 17.04.2018 has not been made in exigency of service but the same is a general transfer and therefore, the respondent Bank cannot deny him the benefit of him being transferred to the place of his choice as he has already completed his tenure at Guwahati. He further submits that if the petitioner is transferred to Kolkata or any place out of the North East region, he will lose his right to be posted at the station of his choice. He submits that as per policy of the Bank, persons who are posted in the North-East amongst others, on completing a tenure of two years are eligible to apply for posting at their home State or to a place of their choice. Therefore, if the petitioner accepts his posting at the Regional Office at Kolkata, he will no longer have the right to make a choice for his posting.
6. Mr. UK Nair, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the Circular Letter No.18004 dated 04.01.2018 is not confined alone to officers working in North East Region having two years of active service as on 31.05.2018 but the same is also applicable for employees working in other parts of the country who have completed three years of active service as on 31.05.2018. By referring to Clause-4 of the Circular letter dated 04.01.2018, the learned senior counsel submits that if the Bank is unable to transfer an employee to the place/region opted, than transfe
