Delhi High Court
Shri D.K. Sood & Anr. vs Punjab National Bank on 18 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.4911/2014
% 18th March, 2015
SHRI D.K. SOOD & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla with Mr.Rajeev
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Jagat Arora and Mr.Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) No.4930/2014
RADHEY SHYAM KHARBANDA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla with Mr.Rajeev
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Jagat Arora and Mr.Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) No.4993/2014
PRADEEP KUMAR KHANNA & ORS. . ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla with Mr.Rajeev
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Jagat Arora and Mr.Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
W.P.(C) No.4911/2014 & connected matters page 1 of 5
+ W.P.(C) No.5024/2014
K.K. MALHOTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla with Mr.Rajeev
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Jagat Arora and Mr.Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioners, who are employees working in the clerical cadre/Junior
Management Grade (JMG) Scale-I of the employer/Punjab National Bank,
question the action of the employer/Bank in firstly notifying a policy dated
22.7.2014 that on promotion to JMG Scale-I, people above 57 years will not
be transferred, but that policy was subsequently changed and replaced by a
new policy dated 02.8.2014 which did away with this clause i.e the effect
was that employees above the age of 57 years on promotion were liable to be
transferred.
2. The relevant para of the policy dated 22.7.2014 reads as under:-
W.P.(C) No.4911/2014 & connected matters page 2 of 5
"
d) Exceptions A. The following category of candidates
shall be considered as special category
candidates:-
i. Physically Handicapped candidates.
ii. Candidates having mentally retarded
children.
iii. Candidates of more than 57 years of
age as on 30.6.2014.
B. Such candidates, in order of preference as
above may be retained in their parent
Circles, subject to availability of
vacancy(ies), before effecting inter-circle
transfers. Such candidates may therefore
submit their parent circle as first option.
"
3. The relevant clause of the amended policy dated 02.8.2014 reads as
under:-
"
d) Exceptions A. The following category of
candidates shall be considered as
special category candidates:-
i. Physically Handicapped
candidates.
ii. Candidates having mentally
retarded children.
B. Such candidates, in order of
preference as above may be retained
in their parent Circles, subject to
availability of vacancy(ies), before
effecting inter-circle transfers. Such
candidates may therefore submit their
parent circle as first option.
C. Special category candidates may
W.P.(C) No.4911/2014 & connected matters page 3 of 5
submit any other Circle as first option
which will be considered subject to
availability of vacancy(ies), before
effecting inter-circle transfers. In
case no vacancy is left for the Circle
opted by the special category
candidates, they will be retained in
parent Circles.
D. The special category candidates of
the Circles within the jurisdiction of
FGMO Delhi and HO Division shall
however be allocated to any Circle
within the jurisdiction of FGMO
Delhi/HO Divisions subject to
availability of vacancies. Such
candidates may submit Delhi/Noida
as first option.
"
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the employer/Bank has
suddenly changed the requirement that the people above 57 years of age will
be transferred only because of pressure put by an association of employees
of the respondent/Bank. It is also argued that there cannot be sudden
changes once an option is exercised by an employee in terms of the earlier
policy dated 22.7.2014 i.e since an employee is above 57 years he hence
cannot be transferred since such an employee has already exercised an
option in terms of the earlier policy dated 22.7.2014 to not get transferred.
5. In my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner totally
lack substance because this Court cannot substitute itself for the employer
for taking an administrative decision as to how the affairs of a Bank have
W.P.(C) No.4911/2014 & connected matters page 4 of 5
to/can be run, especially as regards a Bank which has branches and
administration all over the India. Courts cannot step in with respect to the
policy decisions with respect to administration of an organization, and even
for the sake of argument, if it is presumed that the respondent/Bank has
changed the policy for transfer for employees over 57 years of age on
account of the pressure put by an association of employees, yet, in spite of
that it cannot be doubted that for maintaining industrial relations, the
employer can first make a policy and thereafter even change that policy.
The powers of the employer to re-frame a policy guideline or change the
policy in toto even cannot be doubted, and there is no law that an employer
must function only under a particular policy and it cannot carry out
administration by transferring its employees, that too only because certain
employees so want.
6. Dismissed.
MARCH 18, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA
W.P.(C) No.4911/2014 & connected matters page 5 of 5
