Delhi High Court
Manoj Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr on 3 June, 2016
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5518/2016 & CM No.23072/2016
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Anshuman Ashok, Advocate
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 03.06.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the
Staff Circular dated 3.5.2016, issued by the respondent on Transfer/Posting
of Officers promoted to MMGS-II under Fast and Normal Track and calling
upon all the promotee officers under transfer to report to the concerned
FGMO for further posting on or before 10.5.2016 (Annexure P-9).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Staff Circular dated
3.5.2016 runs contrary to the Revised Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2003
issued by the Human Resource Management Department of the respondent
(Annexure P-3). He submits that the Revised Transfer Policy dated
18.12.2003 was again revised by the respondent on 24.9.2012 (Annexure P-
4). As per the Revised Transfer Policy dated 18.12.2003, the petitioner
ought to have been retained in his parent State for a period of three years
which in this case is the NCT of Delhi. However, in a period of less than
one year on being posted to Delhi, he has been transferred under the
impugned Staff Circular.
3. Counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, states
that the service regulations of the respondent/Bank mandates that every
officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or at any
place in India and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise a grievance about his
transfer to Varanasi, UP. He further states that even the clause that the
petitioner is relying upon, i.e., Clause III of the Revised Transfer Policy
dated 18.12.2003 relating to promotion, has clarified inter alia that in the
event the retention of the officers in their parent State results in their being
supernumerary or it hinders the transfers back to the parent State of those
who have completed three years out of their parent State and are due for
transfer back to their parent State, the said exemption would not apply. It is
in this background that it is stated that the petitioner having been promoted
to the post of MMGS II on 15.2.2016, has been transferred to the zone
mentioned against his name along with 265 other promotees, as per the list
enclosed with the impugned Staff Circular dated 3.5.2016.
4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had
submitted a detailed representation dated NIL to the respondent duly
acknowledged by them on 7.5.2016, requesting for cancellation of his
transfer order, but the same has not been replied to till date.
5. Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents shall ensure
that the said representation is considered and decided by the competent
authority within one week from today.
6. Having regard to the said submission, the present petition is disposed
of with directions issued to the respondents to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order within one week.
7. The Court is informed that the petitioner has already been relieved
from his present place of posting, i.e., Delhi, but has taken leave for a period
of one week.
8. That being the position, the Court is not inclined to accede to the
request of the counsel for the petitioner that an interim order be passed in
favour of the petitioner.
9. The writ petition is disposed of, along with the pending application.
Dasti to the respondents.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JUNE 03, 2016
sk
