Delhi High Court
Suresh Puri vs State Bank Of Travancore And Anr. on 17 July, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17th July, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 4083/2012 & CM. No. 8544/2012 (Stay)
SURESH PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravikesh K. Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE AND
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order
dated 29.03.2012 whereby he has been transferred from Sector 18, Gurgaon,
to Irinjalakuda in Kerala State.
2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner made various
representations to the Bank, however, there is no response from them and
finally directed the petitioner to join at the place mentioned above.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
the Circular issued on 17.05.2012 for review of the transfer order dated
29.03.2012. However, the case of the petitioner has not been considered.
4. Petitioner requested the General Manager (Operations) of the
respondent Bank for giving him posting at Manesar or to be opened
branches at places like Bhiwadi and others, as the father of the petitioner,
who is 81 years of age suffering from Parkinson has gone into depression
after knowing that the petitioner has to join at a distant place.
5. Vide the instant petition, petitioner has stated that there is no else
other than the petitioner to look after his old and ailing father. Therefore,
petitioner made a request to the respondent Bank in the letter dated
25.05.2012 to keep him in the NCR region, so that apart from discharging
his duties, petitioner may be of help of his old and ailing father, who
requires his presence in Delhi.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
the Annexure 11, i.e. Certificate issued by Department of Neurosciences, All
India Institute of Medical Sciences, which is as under:-
"This is to certify that Mr. B.R. Puri (OPD No. 385/07) is
suffering from advanced Parkinson's disease for the last 7
years. He is dependent for his activities of daily needs.
He needs one person with him to look after him all the
time and requires regular follow up at the hospital".
7. The Division Bench of this Court has already held in P.Rajapratap v.
UOI & Ors : 2010 (1) SLR 123 while referring the decision in UOI v. S. L.
Abbas : AIR 1993 SC 2444 that a policy guideline regulating transfer of
employees does not create any enforceable legal right in favour of an
employee. It being settled law that transfer and posting is an incident of
service and it is upto the respondent to decide where the employee should be
deputed. Of course, where malice is proved, a Court can interdict a transfer
posting order.
8. Courts normally should not interfere into day-to-day transfer and
posting. However, the case of the petitioner has not been considered on the
grounds mentioned in the representation.
9. Therefore, I direct the respondent bank to consider his case
sympathetically and, if possible, he may be posted in Northern Region.
10. Instant petition is disposed of in the above terms.
11. In view of the above, CM. No. 8544/2012 (Stay) become infructuous
and disposed of as such.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 17, 2012
jg
