High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133455 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10779 of 2025 Petitioner :- Harish Kumar Respondent :- The Deputy General Manager And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Garg Counsel for Respondent :- Pashupati Nath Tripathi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Shailendra Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pashupati Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submits that charge-sheet was wrongly issued and on instructions further submits that it will be withdrawn without any condition. 3. Now the question left is as to whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against his transfer order from Moradabad to Chennai was rightly rejected or not.
Decision
4. Petitioner has approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation by way of filing Writ-A No.8616 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 1.7.2025. For reference, said order in its entirety is reproduced hereinafter: "1. Heard Sri Shailendra Garg, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.N. Tripathi, Advocate for respondents. 2. Petitioner, a Branch Manager, has challenged impugned transfer order dated 15.05.2025 whereby he has been transferred from Moradabad to Chennai. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner refers following relevant paragraphs of Transfer Policy in Public Sector Banks dated 26.11.2024: ". In view of the above, the 'Transfer Policy' of the banks have been reviewed and with an aim to promote greater transparency, and to ensure formulation of a uniform and non-discretionary 'Transfer Policy', PSBs are advised as below: e. Banks to accommodate officers up to Scale-III in the respective linguistic region in order to ensure seamless customer service to the extent possible, considering various factors including availability of vacancies, administrative exigencies etc j. Grievances received from employees citing violation of transfer policies be dealt in a considerate manner and suitably responded after detailed deliberations and by duly recording the reasons thereof. k. With respect to appeals received on transfers from the employees, a committee be set up to look into the issue and dispose the appeals within 15 days." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has still not joined at transferred place and he has already filed a representation, however, the same is not decided till date as well as petitioner will file an appeal within seven days from today and prays that the same may be decided as per aforesaid policy. Learned counsel further prays that till then petitioner may not be forced to join at transferred place. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that in case appeal is filed within a week, the same will be decided within 15 days thereafter. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with observation that in case petitioner files an appeal within seven days from today, the same shall be decided within 15 days thereafter and its legal consequence will follow. Meanwhile, petitioner may not be forced to join at transferred place. In case petitioner failed to file an filed appeal within aforesaid period, he shall join at transferred placed, subject to outcome of appeal, if filed at later stage." 5. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.7.2025 and for reference, same is reproduced hereinafter: "This has reference to your representation dated 15.05.2025 to ZO:Moradabad and subsequent appeal dated 03.07.2025 addressed to DZM, ZO Moradabad and General Manager (HRM), Corporate Office regarding your transfer from Moradabad to Vellore Zone under FGMO Chennai. Your appeal alongwith the reasons stated by you for not to be considered for transfer to FGMO Chennai has been perused by the committee and it has been observed as under: 1. As per Transfer Policy for Officers upto Scale III, the maximum duration for stay in a state is 09 years. However, you were posted in the state of Uttar Pradesh since 2011 and your stay in the state of Uttar Pradesh exceeded 09 years maximum period. 2. The medical conditions of your parents have been quoted for reconsideration of your transfer. As per transfer policy, transfer on compassionate grounds (para 9) will be restricted to the serious personal health condition of the Officer/Spouse/ Dependent children." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds firstly that petitioner has stayed at one State for more that 9 years and secondly as per transfer policy, transfer on compassionate grounds is restricted to the serious personal health condition of the Officer/Spouse/ Dependent children only, whereas in the present case transfer is challenged on a ground that his parents are suffering from illness. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause No.5.5 of Transfer Policy for Officers Upto Scale III in regard to 'linguistic region' was not considered despite specifically observed in the order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that appeal of the petitioner has been considered in terms of transfer policy for Officers Upto Scale of Version 2.2 as adopted on 1.4.2025, though he is not able to convince this Court that Clause 5.5 was not considered. Clause 5.5 of Transfer Policy for Officers Upto Scale III is reproduced hereinafter: "5.5 It will be endeavour to accommodate Officers in the respective "linguistic region" to ensure seamless customer service to the maximum extent possible, subject to availability of vacancies, administrative requirement of the Bank etc." : 9. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records. 10. This Court in the earlier round of litigation has specifically observed that claim of the petitioner may be considered in regard to the above referred clause 5.5 of transfer policy, however, the same is ignored in the impugned order. 11. It is the view of the Court that order passed in the earlier round of litigation was not followed in its letter and spirit. 12. Court is of further opinion that an employee from one State to another State cannot be transferred only due to language problem since it would be against basic concept of the country i.e. unity in diversity. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances since an assurance has been given by the learned counsel for the respondent bank that impugned charge-sheet will be withdrawn, therefore, relief sought in this regard is adequately addressed. 14. So far as order passed in the Appeal is concerned, Court is of view that in case petitioner joins at transferred place within 15 days from today and files a fresh representation after a period of 8 weeks, a fact as to whether petitioner has suffered any linguistic problem or not, will be taken note of and a fresh order be passed. 15. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad