HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 670 / 2018

Neha Kanwar D/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o

Village & Post Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (presently Transferred

and Working As Assistant Manager (Employee Code: 829170) in

IDBI Bank Ltd., Jhamarkotra (880), Udaipur).

----Appellant

Versus

1.

IDBI Bank Ltd, Through Its Chairman, IDBI Tower, WTC

Complex, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai.

2.

Chief General Manager (HR), IDBI Tower, WTC Complex,

Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai.

3.

Dy. General Manager-HR, RB Delhi Zonal Office, Retail

Banking, Ist Floor Videocon Tower, E-1, Jhandewalan

Extension, New Delhi.

4.

Regional Head, Rajasthan-II Region, 47, Panchwati Saheli

Marg, Udaipur.

5.

Manager HR, RB Delhi Zonal Office, Retail Banking, Ist Floor

Videocon Tower, E-1, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.

6.

Branch Head, IDBI Bank Ltd., Saheli Marg (050), Udaipur.

7.

Branch Head, IDBI Bank Ltd., Jhamarkotra (880), Rajasthan

State Minerals & Mines Ltd., PO- Jhamarkotra, District

Udaipur.

8.

Service & Operation Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., Saheli Marg

(050), Udaipur.

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.R. Jajra.

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

13/04/2018

1.

Request for adjournment is declined.

2.

The appellant was aggrieved by an order transferring her on

07.11.2017 from one branch of the Bank to another branch in

(2 of 2)

[SAW-670/2018]

Udaipur. The distance between the branches is only 23 kilometers.

3.

Since the appellant had desired speaking order to be passed

on the representation submitted by her against the order

transferring her, the Department passed a speaking order. The

reasoned order brings out how the appellant was trying to misuse

her status as a female. Her grievance that she was earlier

transferred from Baran to Udaipur in defiance of the transfer

policy, as per which a person had to complete 3 years service, was

dealt with by respondents noting that the said transfer was at her

own request.

4.

The speaking order also brought out that the appellant was

not able to satisfactorily discharge her duties in a large branch.

5.

Facts stated in the representation that as a female she would

have a problem in serving at the new branch has been dealt with

noting that many other Banks have their branches near the branch

where appellant has been transferred and the female employees

works at the said branches. It is also highlighted that there is a

government school nearby where female teachers are employed.

6.

Noting aforesaid facts the learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging her

transfer.

7.

We find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

8.

The appeal is dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ.

Ashutosh