[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Rishiraj Dass vs The Uco Bank And 2 Ors on 18 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010279532025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/408/2025
SRI RISHIRAJ DASS
RESIDENT OF PIA EXOTICA, FLAT NO B- 4/E,
BHAGADUTTAPUR, KAHILIPARA,
GUWAHATI,KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM 781019
VERSUS
THE UCO BANK AND 2 ORS
A COMMERCIAL BAK AND A GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT UCO BANK HEAD OFFICE,
10, BTM 700001 AND IS SARANI,
KOLKATA -REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CEO
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRM
PSD
TRAINING OL
UCO BANK HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
HEAD OFFICE
4TH FLOOR
10 BTM SARANI
KOLKATA 700001
3:THE ZONAL MANAGER
GUWAHATI ZONE
UCO BANK
SILPUKHURI
MANIRAM DEWAN ROAD
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP M
ASSAM
PIN 78100
Page No.# 2/4
For the appellant : Mr. D. Deka, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
18-12-2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. D. Deka, learned Advocate for the appellant
and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondents/Bank.
The appellant has questioned the judgment dated 03.12.2025
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) 3683/2025,
whereby he has refused to interfere with the order of transfer of the
appellant dated 21.06.2025 from Guwahati Zonal office to the UCO Bank
Main Office at Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati.
The appellant is the Joint General Secretary of the Association of
the Office Bearers of the Bank and enjoyed certain
exemptions/protections with respect to transfer.
Mr. Deka has argued that even though such exemption is not iron-
clad, as the Managing Director & CEO have the powers to make any
deviation from such exemption regarding transfer of Office Bearers of
recognised Union/Association, but in the case of transfer of the
appellant, what has been relied upon by the authorities in transferring the
appellant is an advisory by the Chief General Manager, HRM, PSD,
Page No.# 3/4
Training & OL, which, the appellant argues, could not have been the
basis for transferring the appellant.
The advisory dated 18.06.2025, referred to above, indicates that it
came to the notice of the Personal Department that in certain zones,
Office Bearers of Unions were being posted in Zonal Office and other
Controlling/Monitoring offices which created unwarranted situations in
the management of the controlling offices. It was thus advised that such
postings, unless critically warranted, be avoided in
zonal/controlling/monitoring offices to ensure neutrality and to avoid
conflict of interest in day-to-day operations.
As part of such advisory, it was indicated that the Zonal offices
should avoid posing of Union Office Bearers of the Unions in
Zonal/Controlling/Monitoring Offices.
There were other suggestions as well.
However, what the appellant is aggrieved with is the insistence for
adherence to such advisory by the Chief General Manager.
On such ground, the transfer order has been challenged.
Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge did not appreciate this aspect of the matter and
decided the case on the ground that transfer is an incidence of service
and that there were no mala fides in transferring the appellant from one
centre to other.
The countervailing argument of Mr. M. Sharma, learned Advocate
Page No.# 4/4
for the respondents/Bank is that in accordance with the policy itself, any
movement of an officer/employee from one branch/office to another
branch/office within the same centre shall not be considered as a
transfer; but only as a placement. He has pointed out that the appellant
has now been allegedly placed in the Main Branch of the Bank at Fancy
Bazaar, Guwahati. Prior to his present placement, he was officiating in
the zonal office in Guwahati only. Thus, without the change of
centre/location/place, the placement order cannot be termed to be a
transfer, breaching the provision/exemption from transfer in cases of
office bearers of the Union.
Before the case could be concluded, Mr. Deka, learned Advocate
for the appellant submitted that another writ petition [WP(C) 3620/2025]
challenging the advisory issued by the Chief General Manager, which in
fact is also the basis for transferring the appellant, is pending
consideration before a learned Single Judge.
Let this appeal be listed along with WP(C) 3620/2025 on 02.02.2026.
It is expected that, in the meanwhile, the appellant shall join the
new place of posting.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
