G.Shanmugam v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.10.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.20336 of 2009and M.P.NOs.1 and 2 OF 2009G.Shanmugam... Petitioner Vs.1.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006.2.The General Manager (NW-1) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006.3.The General Manager(NW-2) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006. ... RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to therespondents' order made in Office Order No.2009/24, dated17.09.2009, to quash the same insofar as the petitioner isconcerned and consequently, to direct the respondents to retain thepetitioner in any one of the Chief Manager or any equivalent postin Chennai till his superannuation i.e., 30.6.2010.For Petitioner : Mr.L.ChandrakumarFor Respondents : Mr.P.Sukumar ORDERThe petitioner, who is working as a Chief Manager in thefirst respondent State Bank of India, filed this writ petition,seeking to challenge an order, dated 17.09.2009, wherein and bywhich he was transferred from Chief Manager, FPLB, Chennai to theChief Manager, RCPC, Thiruvarur by an office order No.2009/24.2.On coming to know that such an order is going to beissued, the petitioner sent a representation, dated 16.09.2009, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stating that he would like to have retention at Chennai itself inorder to take care of his health and to take care of his family.Since he was having only nine months' service and was to retire inJune, 2010, the transfer will be an unnecessary burden on him.After the receipt of the order, the petitioner once again sent arepresentation, dated 20.09.2009 followed by a reminder, dated22.09.2009. Since there was no reply, the petitioner moved thiscourt.3.On notice from this Court, the respondents have filed acounter affidavit, dated 15.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, itwas stated that it was a routine transfer. The State Bank of IndiaOfficers Service Rules, 1992 clearly stipulates that every officeris liable for transfer to any officer or branch of the bank or toany place or deputation to any other origination in India. Withreference to a request for cancellation of transfer, in paragraphs5 and 6 of the counter, it was stated as follows:"5.The petitioner was posted earlier atChennai from June 2006 and he continued inservice in Chennai till the order of transferdated 17.09.2009 came to be passed. Thepetitioner was also relieved in pursuance of thetransfer order from the existing place andanother person has joined in his place. Thepetitioner was originally transferred toTirunelveli by order dated 04.07.2009 and on hisrepresentation he is posted to Thiruvarur aftertaking consideration of his representation. Thetransfer order is related to 26 persons andthere is no vacancy at present at Chennai eitherto accommodate him or retain him at same place.The petitioner is grade IV Officer and withregard to grade IV offices who are SeniorManagement level posting have to be givenaccording to their grades which are limited innature. If one person has to be retained in oneparticular place the above mentioned list has tobe changed. Since already the department hastaken sympathetic view by transferring toThiruvarur after cancelling the posting toTirunelveli which place is not far of Chennai.Further it is not the case of the petitioner heis a native of Chennai and he is to take care ofaged parents being only son. The grounds onwhich the petitioner seeks to retain at Chennaiis that he is suffering from persistent vertigowhich is causing giddiness and nausea. He cantake the treatment at any place. Thiruvarur isnearer to both Thanjavur and Kumbakonam. Theother ground is that his wife is suffering fromHigh Blood Pressure. This has been mentioned inthe affidavit only whereas in the representationdated 16.09.2009 he has mentioned that his wife https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is suffering from ENT and her surgery isscheduled shortly, for this also no necessity tostay in Chennai for longer duration. 6.The last ground which the petitioneralleged is that his daughter is living with himalong with her child aged 2 years. It is not avalid or bonafide ground for the petitioner forretention in the same place."4.The Supreme Court vide its decision in State of U.P. Vs.Siva Ram and another reported in 2004 (7) SCC 405 in paragraph 5observed as follows:"The High Court while exercisingjurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India had gone into thequestion as to whether the transfer was in theinterest of public service. That wouldessentially require factual adjudication andinvariably depend upon peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case concerned. NoGovernment servant or employee of a publicundertaking has any legal right to be postedforever at any one particular place or place ofhis choice since transfer of a particularemployee appointed to the class or category oftransferable posts from one place to other isnot only an incident but a condition ofservice, necessary to in public interest andefficiency in the public administrative. Unlessan order of transfer is shown to be an outcomeof mala fide exercise or stated to be inviolation of statutory provisions prohibitingany such transfer, the Courts or the tribunalsnormally cannot interfere with such orders as amatter of routine, as though they wereappellate authorities substituting their owndecision for that of the employer/management,as against such orders passed in the interestof administrative exigencies of the serviceconcerned. This position was highlighted bythis Court in National Hydroelectric PowerCorpn. Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan".5.Further, the Supreme Court in yet another decision inState of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in 2004 (11) SCC 402 inparagraph 7 observed as follows:"It is too late in the day for anyGovernment servant to contend that onceappointed or posted in a particular place orposition, he should continue in such place orposition as long as he desires. Transfer of anemployee is not only an incident inherent inthe terms of appointment, but also implicit as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an essential condition of service in theabsence of any specific indication to thecontra, in the law governing or conditions ofservice. Unless the order of transfer is shownto be an outcome of a mala fide exercise ofpower or violative of any statutory provision(an Act or rule) or passed by an authority notcompetent to do so, an order of transfer cannotlightly be interfered with as a matter ofcourse or routine for any or every type ofgrievance sought to be made. Evenadministrative guidelines for regulatingtransfers or containing transfer policies atbest may afford an opportunity to the officeror servant concerned to approach their higherauthorities for redress but cannot have theconsequence of depriving or denying thecompetent authority to transfer a particularofficer/servant to any place in public interestand as is found necessitated by exigencies ofservice as long as the official status is notaffected adversely and there is no infractionof any career prospects such as seniority,scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Courthas often reiterated that the order of transfermade even in transgression of administrativeguidelines cannot also be interfered with, asthey do not confer any legally enforceablerights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to bevitiated by mala fides or is made in violationof any statutory provision."6.In the light of the above, this court is not inclined tointerfere with the order of transfer issued in the normal course ofbusiness. There is no mala fide alleged against the respondents.7.In the light of the above, this writ petition standsdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions also stand dismissed.Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarvvkTo1.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The General Manager (NW-1) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006.3.The General Manager(NW-2) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai-600 006. +1 CC to Mr.P.Sukumar, Advocate, Sr.57186+1 CC to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate, Sr.57258W.P.NO.20336 OF 2009PKB (CO)SRA 02/11/2009