Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 20.09.2024 vs Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. ... on 20 September, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:9019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 947 of 2024
Decided on: 20.09.2024
Ajay Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
_____________________________________________________
For the petitioner r: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate for
respondent No. 3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
In the present case, proposed respondent No. 3 has
been served. Whereas Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned Counsel is
appearing on behalf of proposed respondent No. 3, Mr. Sohan Singh
Rathore, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that
he too has instructions to appear on behalf of proposed respondent
No. 3. This Court is surprised that the Counsel for the employer is
too under instructions to put in appearance for one of the employees
impleaded as respondent in private capacity in an adversarial
litigation. No request has been made on behalf of proposed
respondent No. 3 that said respondent be permitted to file reply.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:9019
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of
.
Annexure P-2, he has been transferred from Branch Office of the
respondent-Bank at Bara, District Hamirpur to Rulehad, District
Kangra. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was posted at Bara on 01.02.2023 and the impugned
transfer order has been passed just after an year's stay at Bara. He
has drawn the attention of the Court to the transfer norms of the
respondent-Bank and submitted that in terms of the said norms,
normal stay of an employee at a particular station is three years, but
if exigency of service otherwise requires, the employee can be
transferred prior to three years by the competent Authority. He
submitted that the transfer of the petitioner cannot be said to be on
account of any exigency, for the reason that it is apparent that this
order has been passed just to accommodate the private respondent
who has been transferred from Jwalamukhi Branch to Bara Branch
after transferring the petitioner from there. Accordingly, he prayed
that as the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of the transfer
norms of the Bank, the petition be allowed and the impugned
transfer order be quashed and set aside.
3. The petition is opposed by the respondents. Learned
Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the petitioner
has been transferred on account of exigency of service, without there
2024:HHC:9019
being any malafide and as it is the discretion of the employer to post
.
its employees at the place of its choice, where the services of the
incumbent are required, therefore, the transfer order calls for no
interference. Learned Counsel has also submitted that as Branch
Office at Rulehad was without any Grade-II officer, it is for this
reason that the petitioner has been transferred to the said station.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended
therewith.
5. The challenge to the transfer order by the petitioner is
on the ground that it is in violation of the transfer norms of the
respondent-Bank. I have perused the transfer norms of the Bank
which are appended with the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. In fact,
as far as the Bank is concerned, it has framed Rules relating to the
terms of the employment and working conditions of the employees
which are duly approved by the Registrar of the Cooperative
Societies. Rule 34 of these Rules, which is part of Chapter 9, deals
with posting and transfers, provides that normally the stay of an
employee at a particular station will be three years, however, if the
exigency of service otherwise requires, the employee can be
transferred prior to three years by the competent Authority. Thus, it
is in terms of these Rules in vogue, relating to the terms of
2024:HHC:9019
employment and working conditions of the employees, an employee
.
has a right of stay of three years at a particular station until and
unless exigency of service requires for his transfer without
completion of stay of normal tenure of three years.
6. Coming back to the facts of this case, the justification as
has come forth from the respondents is that the petitioner has been
transferred from Bara Branch, District Hamirpur to Rulehad
Branch, District Kangra, as it is the discretion of the employer to
post its employees and that there was no officer posted at Rulehad
which necessitated this transfer. This was the exact submission
which was made by learned Counsel for the Bank. However, this
submission is totally incorrect, as a perusal of the impugned
transfer order demonstrates that one Amit Kumar, who was a Grade-
II Officer was the Bank, in terms of this transfer order stands
transferred from Rulehad to Jamnabad. Thus, when Amit Kumar
was already serving at Rulehad, the submission of learned Counsel
for the respondent-bank that petitioner was transferred to Rulehad
as no Officer was posted there is incorrect. Not only this,
incidentally, the private respondent happens to be a Grade-I officer
whereas, the petitioner is a Grade-II officer, who has been
transferred from Bara to Rulehad.
7. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the impugned
2024:HHC:9019
transfer order is not account of administrative exigency, but is an
.
act of colourable exercise of power and further as the transfer of the
petitioner is without permitting him to complete normal tenure of
three years at Bara Branch, the same is completely arbitrary and not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 29.01.2024,
Annexure P-2, from Bara to Rulehad is hereby quashed and set
aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner at
Bara, for a normal tenure of three years. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
Sept. 19, 2024
(narender)
