Himachal Pradesh High Court
Narayan Singh vs Deputy General Manager on 23 February, 2021
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Ravi Malimath
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 677 of 2021
Decided on: 23.02.2021
.
Narayan Singh
.......Petitioner
Versus
Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India and others.
......Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. D.S. Kainthla, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
(Through video conferencing)
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral)
The petitioner is an Armed Guard/Security Guard and
has served in hard area with the respondent-Bank and has
completed five years of tenure. As per Transfer Policy of the
respondent-Bank, Annexure P-2, he is entitled for transfer to a
place of his choice, but without affording him an opportunity to
express his place of choice, he has been transferred vide order
dated 30th October, 2020 to Kumarsain Branch in Rampur.
Though this transfer has been made in the month of October,
2020, but he has not been relieved.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that as per Transfer Policy of Bank, after completion of five years
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
of tenure, he is entitled to express place of his choices and
without giving him an opportunity to express his choice
.
unilaterally, impugned transfer order dated 30 th October, 2020
has been passed by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner has
made a representation to the respondent-Bank on 23 rd
November, 2020 for cancellation of his transfer, but the same
has not been redressed by the respondent-Bank. Hence, he has
filed the present writ petition for quashing and setting aside the
impugned order dated 30th October, 2020 and also permitting
him to express his place of choice with a further direction to the
respondent-Bank to transfer him to the place of his choice.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the
other hand, submits that as per Transfer Policy, it is the
prerogative of the Bank to transfer an employee, however, this
policy further provides to give a place of his choice for the
purpose of consideration of transfer. Though, he has been
transferred vide impugned order dated 30th October, 2020, but
he has not been relieved till date. Under these circumstances,
the representation dated 23.11.2020 pending consideration has
to be considered.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed
his tenure of five years of service in the hardest area and has
attained the age of 55 years. When a policy of the Bank covering
the field permits an employee to express his place of choice for
the purpose of transfer, it is to be understood that the transfer
.
has to be effected by considering the representation to the place
of his choice, but without permitting the petitioner to express his
place of choice, he has been transferred vide impugned order
dated 30th October, 2020, though he has not been relieved so
far. Under these circumstances, we feel it just and appropriate
to direct the respondent-Bank to consider the pending
representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders
within four weeks from today thereon as per the Transfer Policy.
Till then, the petitioner may not been relieved from the present
place of posting.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is
disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( L. Narayana Swamy )
Chief Justice
February 23, 2021 ( Ravi Malimath )
(naveen) Judge
