Rajasthan High Court
Ramchandra Khangar S/O Shri ... vs The Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari ... on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4167/2022
Ramchandra Khangar S/o Shri Sunderlal Ji Khangar, Aged About
59 Years, R/o Village Post Kunjer, Tehsil Atru, District Baran
(Rajasthan) Presently Working On The Post Of Sr. Branch
Manager, Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd. Branch At Raipur
District Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Head Office At
Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) Through Its
Managing Director, Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd.,
Head Office At Jhalarapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)
Through Its Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director, Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank
Ltd., Head Office At Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)
3. The Administrator Jhalawar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd.
Cum District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)
4. The District Collector, Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mutha
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
14/03/2022
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the Jhalawar Kendriya
Sahkri Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'Bank') by which
the petitioner has been transferred from Senior Manger, Kendriya
Sahkari Bank Ltd. Jhalawar to Senior Manger, Kendriya Sahkari
Bank Ltd., Manoharthana.
(2 of 3) [CW-4167/2022]
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that only eight months
remain by now in the retirement of the petitioner as he is going to
retire in the month of November, 2022 and in such circumstances
there appears no good reason in transferring the petitioner
disturbing him in the last few months of his service and, therefore,
prayed for quashing of the transfer order dated 04.03.2022.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India
and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in
(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has
held as under:-
"3.The High Court, in interfering with the
order of transfer, has relied on two
circumstances. Firstly, the High Court has
noted that as a result of the stay on the
order of transfer, the headquarters of the
respondent will remain at Mumbai and
even if he is to be suspended, his
headquarters will continue to remain at
Mumbai. The second reason, which was
weighed with the High Court, is that the
spouse of the respondent suffers from a
cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical
treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither
of these reasons can furnish a valid
justification for the High Court to take
recourse to its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution in
passing an order of injunction of this
nature. Significantly, the High Court has
not even found a prima facie case to the
effect that the order of transfer was either
mala fide or in breach of law. The High
Court could not have dictated to the
employer as to where the respondent
should be posted during the period of
suspension. Individual hardships are
matters for the Union of India, as an
employer, to take a dispassionate view.
(3 of 3) [CW-4167/2022]
4.However, we are categorically of the view
that the impugned order of the High Court
interfering with the order of transfer was in
excess of jurisdiction and an improper
exercise of judicial power. We are
constrained to observe that the impugned
order has been passed in breach of the
settled principles and precedents which
have consistently been enunciated and
followed by this Court. The manner in
which judicial power has been exercised by
the High Court to stall a lawful order of
transfer is disquieting. We express our
disapproval".
5. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner who is an
employee of the bank cannot claim as a matter of right to serve at
a particular place of his choice; secondly, the petitioner is a senior
manager and looking to the experience of the petitioner he has
been transferred within the same district; thirdly, in view of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Union of India (supra), in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Chetna/135
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
