High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21573 of 2024 Soumya Mishra …. Petitioner Pe Mr.SuryakantaDash,Ad Advocate -Versus- State Bank of Ind India& others …. Opposite site Parties Mr.C.B. Mohapatra,Adv dvocate RAM: CORA MR. JUSTICER.K. PATTANAIK M ORDER 10.09.2024 Order No. 03. 1. Heard M d Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learne rned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Instant w t writ petition is filed by the petitioner challen llenging the order of transfer d er dated 06.08.2024 vide Annexure-3 and the he decision dated 23.08.2024 024 as at Annexure-7 on the grounds stated ted therein and further to dire direct the opposite parties to allow him to con continue as the Junior Associa ciate at Main Branch, State Bank of India, Dh Dhenkanal with consequentia ntial directions issued. 3. Referring ring to the rejoinder affidavit filed in Court tod
Legal Reasoning
today, Mr. Dash, learned cou counsel for the petitioner submits that there h re has been no reason assigne igned in the order of transfer as at Annexur xure-3 and furthermore, it d t does not reveal,whether, such decision to to be on account of any a y administrative exigencies. It is further subm bmitted by Mr. Dash, learned ned counsel that the counter affidavit of the e opposite parties does not not indicatewith a reply, if the petitioner er can be accommodated at at the Main Branch of the Bank, in view of of Court’s order dated 16.08 .08.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.20063 of 20 2024. Mr. Dash, learned cou counsel alleges that there is interpolation in th the portal of the Bank to to justify the order of transfer on the gro ground of administrative ex exigencywhile referring 4 to Annexure-14 to the rejoinder affidavi avit. The contention is that there has b been no administrative exi exigency as on date and the transfer has bee been made later on with thea thealleged interpolation,hence, order of transfe nsfer under Annexure-3 follow llowed by a decision under Annexure-7 is liab liable to be set aside allowing ing the petitioner to remain at the Main Branc anch of the Bank at Dhenkana anal.Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petition tioner lastly submits that two o o other branches are functioning in the same e building at RACC, Dhenk enkanal, where the staff strength is more re and an employee of one o ne of the branches may be accommodated. 4. Mr. Moh ohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite pa parties, on the other hand, su , submits that there has been no illegality comm mmitted in transferring the p e petitioner to the concerned branch, which hich situate within or around nd 1 Km. distance and situate inside Dhenkana anal Town and such decision sion is not against the transfer policy. It is t is further submitted that th the reason for which the petitioner had had to be transferred stands nds explained in the counter affidavit and tha hat apart, by such transfer, h he would not be prejudicedand as such, the the same is by the decision of of the authority concerned and due to admin nistrative exigency. 5. Admitted ttedly, the petitioner has been transferred vid vide order under Annexure-3 3. Consequent upon the Court’s direction in in W.P.(C) No.20063 of 202 024, reconsideration was duly examined by t y the Bank followed by Anne nnexure-7 declining to revisit the decision retai etaining the petitioner at the M Main Branch of the Bank.In so far as transfe nsfer policy is concerned as as at Annexure-8, it stipulates that sub subject to administrative ex exigencies, the physically handicapped em employees should normally b ly be exempted from the routine periodical al transfers Page 2 of 4 Pa and furthermore, re, such persons should not generally be tra transferred even on promotio otion, if a vacancy exists in the same branch/off /office. 6. Mr. Dash ash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits its that the petitioner since un e under disability should not have been transf nsferred to the concerned bra branch, which ought to have been avoided in in view of clause 18(b) of the the transfer policy at Annexure-8 and in reply t ly to same, Mr. Mohapatra, le a, learned counsel for the opposite parties resp esponds by stating that there ere is absolutely no bar so far as the case ase of the petitioner is conce ncerned and that apart,the transfer is on admin ministrative ground.On a prop roper reading of the guidelines of the Bank, tra transfer of a physically ha handicapped employee may be conside idered on administrative exi exigency but it should normally be avoided ded during routine periodical ical transfers. In the instant case, the petitio titioner has been in the Main ain Branch for five years and eight months ths and at present, he is su subjected to transfer on account of admin ministrative exigency. Though gh from the transfer order under Annexure-3, 3, it does not reveal so, but but it can be deciphered from the reply of the he Bank. In the facts and circu ircumstances of the case, it is made to suggest est that the petitioner had to to be transferred to concerned branch o h on such administrative exig exigency. 7. It is state tated by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel el for the opposite parties ies that there are two vacancies in the co concerned branch, out of wh which, one employee is on maternity leave an e and other one is lying vacan cant.With the reply of the opposite parties and nd in view of the fact that at one of the employees, a Junior Associat ciate is on maternity leave a e and other post is still vacant, such transfer sfer of the petitioner has bee been justified. In so far as the order under Ann Annexure-3 is concerned, this his Court is of the view that no reason is neces cessarily to be indicated there erein stating it to be on administrative ground nd. Since a direction wasearlie arlier issued to the Bank to inform, if the petitio titioner can Page 3 of 4 Pa be retained at the Main Branch, the ground of admin ministrative exigency has been een claimed with the counter affidavit filed. 8. Having r g regard to the above facts and the transfer p er policy in place, since there ere is absolutely no bar for the Bank to tr transfer a physically handica dicapped employee, which may be on acc account of administrative exi exigencies, this Court is of the conclusion th that since reason is assigned ed and so revealed from the counter affidavit, vit, it is not a fit case,where th the transfer order is to be interfered with.Th his Court evendoes not find find any ground to conclude that there has b s been any illegality committe itted by the Bank as no interpolation hasreal eally taken place. Further co considering the submission of Mr. Dash, sh, learned counsel for the p e petitioner that one of the employees of ot other two branches can be be accommodated in the branch, to wh which the petitioner has bee en transferred, this Court is not inclined to to consider the same,as no suc such direction can be issued to the Bank.For th the above reasons, this Court ourt is not inclined to entertain any such reque uest of the petitioner to acco ccommodate him at the Main Branchof the he Bank as such transfer is sho shown to be due to administrative exigency. 9. In the re
Decision
result, the writ petition stands dismissed. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 12-Sep-2024 12:03:02 Page 4 of 4 Pa