Bombay High Court
Vinod D. Meshram And Others vs State Bank Of India, Corporate ... on 4 May, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 1.wp.1766.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2021
(VINOD D. MESHRAM & OTH...VS.. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI & OTH.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for petitioners
M. Anilkumar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : MAY 04, 2021.
Heard.
2] This petition is filed by 22 employees working
with the State Bank of India. It is stated that separate Court
fee is paid for each of the petitioner. The submission made
by the learned Advocate for the petitioners is accepted.
3] According to the petitioners, they are working in
the clerical cadre at Nagpur and by the impugned order they
are transferred to Chandrapur region. According to the
petitioners, the transfer orders are in violation of the
directions given by this Court in the earlier round of litigation
i.e. in Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2020. We have gone through
the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.
3461 of 2020. We find that after repelling all the legal
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court
shown limited indulgence in the matter and directed the
respondent-Bank to assess the individual grievance of the
petitioners and to take decision whether the petitioners are
required to be re-deployed at/transferred to Chandrapur.
The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that
respondent-Bank has not considered the individual grievance
and have mechanically maintained the order of re-
2 1.wp.1766.2021.odt
deployment/transfer. In our view, the individual grievances
cannot be examined in this petition which is filed jointly and
principally on the ground that the deployment/transfer of
petitioners is contrary to the settlement between the
respondent-Bank and Union of the Employees. To support
the contention that the re-deployment/transfer are in
violation of the settlement, the learned Advocate for the
petitioners relied on the Memorandum of Settlement dated
22nd July 2003 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and the re-
deployment-cum- transfer policy of Staff specifically Clause-5
of it. The re-deployment-cum-trasfer policy of staff which is a
part of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22 nd July 2003 does
not show that the transfer policy was kept in abeyance till the
new transfer policy is implemented as per the settlement.
Reliance on behalf of the petitioners on the internal
communication dated 29th May 2020 sent by the Chief
General Manager (HR) to the Chief General Manager of all
Circles stating that the transfer under the existing 5 years
transfer Policy and re-deployment Policy would be held back
for the time being until new transfer policy implemented, is
not of any support to the petitioners in as much as such term
is not part of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22 nd July
2003. Moreover, in our view the indefinite inaction on the
part of the concerned in implementing the new transfer policy
cannot hamper the administration of the respondent-Bank in
infinity.
Considering the facts of the case, we do not find
any substance in the petition. Hence, the writ petition is
dismissed.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) ( Z.A.HAQ, J.)
Namrata
