Bhagyashree Bhimrao Meshram ... vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4092 Chatt

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                    WPS No. 4458 of 2022
    Bhagyashree Bhimrao Meshram (8585814) W/o Avishkar Vinayak Bhaosagar, Aged
     About 26 Years, Working as Associate, State Bank of India, Rajhara Branch (Code
     2887), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                                                               ---- Petitioner
                                            Versus
   1. State Bank of India Through The Circle Head, Near Flour Mill, Hoshangabad Road,
      Bhopal 462011 District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
   2. Regional Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Region 4, 1 st Floor,
      City Centre, Kanker 494334, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
   3. Chief Manager, State Bank of India Rajhara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
   4. Government of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial
      Services, Jeevan Deep, 3rd Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001

                                                                           ----Respondents

28/06/2022 Mr. J.K. Gilda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. P.R. Patankar, Counsel for the respondents. Ms. Anuja Sharma, Counsel for Union of India.

Heard.

Learned Senior counsel Mr. J.K. Gilda submits that by this petition the transfer policy of the respondents has been challenged. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Naushad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. delivered in Civil Appeal No.1243/2022 on 10-03-2022, in which it has been held that the policy above all has to fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underline a decision making process informed by constitutional values ensuring the constitutional values as enshrined in Article 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that as an interim measure the petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation and direction may be given to the respondents to consider on the same. Learned counsel representing respondents opposes the submission and submits that the earlier representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of policy decision taken by the respondents Bank. Unless the policy is changed, filing of representation will be of no help. Hence, the prayer for interim relief be rejected.

Considered on the submissions. As there is no bar in filing repeat representation, therefore, the petitioner has liberty to file fresh representation. In case any such representation is filed then the respondents shall consider on the same and take decision accordingly.

In the meanwhile, time is granted to the respondent side to file reply. List this case after four weeks.

Sd/-

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

Aadil