Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
Shree Prakash Singh, J.
Kavita Giri – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2511 of 2024
Decided On : 19-04-2024
Transfer - Employment - Transfer Policy - 8.9.1, 8.9.4, 8.9.5 - The court interpreted the Transfer Policy provisions for lady officers, emphasizing the conditions under which transfers are permissible, particularly the three-year tenure requirement, and concluded that the transfer in question complied with these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged her transfer order, arguing it violated the Transfer Policy for lady officers, which stipulates a three-year tenure for transfers. The petitioner had been transferred within the same zone, which she claimed was arbitrary and against her rights under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was in accordance with the Transfer Policy, specifically noting that the three-year tenure requirement only applies to inter-zonal transfers, which was not the case here. The court concluded that the transfer did not violate any legal provisions.
Issues: Whether the transfer of the petitioner contravened the Transfer Policy for lady officers and whether it violated previous court orders regarding her transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Transfer Policy's provisions must be read in conjunction, and the three-year tenure requirement applies only to inter-zonal transfers, which did not apply in this case.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Prakash Singh, J.
1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, for the opposite parties No. 2 to 6. No one is present for the Union of India.
2. This matter is being decided finally at admission stage on the consent of counsels for both the parties.
3. Under challenge is the order dated 4.11.2023, passed by the General Manager (HRM), Bank of Baroda i.e. opposite party No. 6 as well as the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by the Regional Head, Bank of Baroda, which are said to be passed in utter violation of the order dated 13.7.2023, by this Court in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023 and against the transfer policy, particularly, with respect to the lady officers of the respondent Bank.
4. Factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 26.11.2008, on the post of Probationary Clerk, in Vijaya Bank, which was subsequently merged into Bank of Baroda and she joined in the office at district-Lucknow. Thereafter, in the year, 2012, she was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager in the office at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Later on, the petitioner was transferred on 23.5.2022 to Kanpur Dehat Region from Lucknow office and being far away from her family (parental and matrimonial), there was hardship before the petitioner and therefore, she requested for her transfer in nearby place and considering the request of the petitioner, she was transferred to Kanpur Metro Region Kanpur.
5. The Transfer Policy was framed on 31.3.2019 by the Board of Bank of Baroda under the regulations, published on the official website of the bank on 31.3.2019, wherein Clause 8.9 of the Transfer Policy provides that the lady employees posted upto Scale-III posts, shall be posted as per their request for a stipulated tenure of three years.
6. On 9.6.2023, the petitioner was transferred from Kanpur (U.P.) to Vadodara (Gujarat), on inter-zonal transfer, on the ground of 'longest stay' in one zone. As soon the inter zonal transfer was communicated to the petitioner, she preferred a detailed representation before the respondent-bank, citing therein the hardships of staying thousands of Kilometers away from her family members and her mother and also shown severity of medical condition with respect to her elders. On 16.6.2023, her representation was rejected by the Zonal Office at Lucknow and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 16.6.2023 through e-mail by the opposite party No. 3 and the relieving order was passed on 17.6.2023 from Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur Branch.
7. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.6.2023, the petitioner approached this Court on 19.6.2023 while preferring a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 21.6.2023, whereafter, an Special Appeal bearing No. 347 of 2023 was filed, wherein, on 13.7.2023, while setting aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation and the opposite parties were directed to decide the same in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioner joined her duties at Harjinder Nagar Branch at district-Kanpur, but, she was told to join her duties at Sisamau Branch on deputation and the petitioner joined at Sisamau Branch on 21.8.2023. Thereafter, on 28.7.2023, the petitioner preferred a representation before the General Manager, Bank of Baroda, but, on 8.9.2023, the petitioner was again sent on deputation at Behrana Road Branch and ultimately, the representation of the petitioner is rejected vide order dated 11.9.2023, which was challenged by the petitioner vide Writ A No. 7984 of 2023, wherein an order was passed on 18.10.2023 and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the abovesaid writ petition, left it open to the petitioner to submit a fresh comprehensive representation for redressal of her grievances before the competent authority and the
The Transfer Policy for lady officers allows for transfers within the same zone without invoking the three-year tenure requirement, as this applies only to inter-zonal transfers.
Frequent transfers contravene established transfer policies and may constitute harassment, requiring reconsideration of grievances while emphasizing the importance of a conducive work environment.
The authority to transfer employees lies with designated officials per company policy, and such transfers can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides or policy violation.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited; transfers made without mala fides and within policy guidelines are valid even if completed shortly before the normal retention period.
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
Management has the discretion to transfer employees based on organizational needs, and courts cannot interfere in such administrative decisions unless there is a clear violation of policy.
The spouse ground for transfer can only be utilized once in a ten-year block, and the petitioner had already availed this benefit, thus the transfer was upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
