Allahabad High Court
Renu Chaurasiya vs Punjab And Sind Bank, Lucknow ... on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59607
Court No. - 8
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6826 of 2023
Petitioner :- Renu Chaurasiya
Respondent :- Punjab And Sind Bank, Lucknow Thru. General Manager And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- Sharad Kumar Shukla,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Aniket Raj, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents is also taken on record.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2023 as well as the order dated 11.09.2023 whereby the representation of the petitioner for reconsidering the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.
4. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in point of time, the petitioner was subject to a major penalty, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ-5545 of 2022, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 19.04.2023 in favour of the petitioner. It is argued that after passing of the said judgment and order, the respondents transferred the petitioner in a mala fide manner and contrary to the own policy of transfer. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ-A No.5545 of 2022 alleging that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the policy and particularly Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy. On the said contention, this Court had disposed off the writ petition, vide order dated 06.09.2023, relegating the matter to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner in terms of Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy and it was further directed that while doing so, the benefits granted to the other similarly placed employees shall also be considered.
5. In the light of the said liberty granted to the petitioner, vide order dated 06.09.2023, the petitioner preferred a representation highlighting that she should be posted to a place nearby Lucknow as her parents are residing in Lucknow and she being an unmarried lady is entitled to the said benefit by virtue of Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy. Details of five other persons, who are given the said benefit, were also given along with the representation highlighting that the said persons were granted the benefit of posting to nearby places. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the respondent-Bank quoted Rule 6 of the Transfer Policy and Regulation 47 of the Provisions of PSB (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982. Regulation 47 of the Service Regulation denies the benefit as claimed by the petitioner. While deciding the said representation, it was observed that as many as 14 persons have been transferred from one district to another as they have completed more than six years of services at a place, who were similar to the petitioner. As regard the persons who are posted at nearby places, the reasons were recorded that one of them was given the said benefit on account of there being a medical problem and three of them were given the benefit as their spouses were residing at Lucknow.
6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that the benefit of Clause 9 (ii) of the Transfer Policy, which provides that an unmarried female employee would be accommodated to a place where her parents are residing or a place near to that place subject to availability of vacancies, ought to have given in favour of the petitioner.
7. The Counsel for the respondents-Bank, on the other hand, justifies the order by filing a counter affidavit on the ground that in terms of Rule 9 of the Transfer Policy, the benefit can be extended 'as far as possible ' subject to availability of vacancies and the Bank has posted her at a distance of 140 kilometers away. He further argues that no right can be claimed by virtue of Rule 9 of the Transfer Policy as the services of the petitioner are governed by the Regulations, which clearly specifies that the post is transferable and can be done at any office or the branch of the Bank or to any place in India.
8. Considering the submissions made at the bar and on the basis of the order passed, prima facie, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India against the petitioner, the petitioner does not have any right in terms of Clause 9 (ii) of the Transfer of Policy and the Bank has transferred on the grounds of administrative exigencies. The allegation with regard to the mala fide, as the writ petition was allowed by this Court, is also unsubstantiated. No good ground for interference is made out.
9. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
10. It is, however, provided that if, in future, the petitioner requests on any ground for consideration, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023
akverma
