SPA/171/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 770 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/171/2025 on 7 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                    2025:UHC:5809-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                   COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               SPA/171/2025
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari & Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocates for the appellants.

2. Mr. Saruav Adhikari, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondent no. 1.

3. Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for respondent no. 4.

4. This intra-court appeal is directed against final order dated 26.06.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 1058 of 2025. By the said order, writ petition filed by appellants, challenging their transfer and relieving, was dismissed.

5. Appellants are employees of Union Bank of India. They were temporarily transferred from their principal place of posting to other branches of the bank in Dehradun. They joined their duties in the branches to which they were temporarily transferred. Subsequently, the competent authority in the bank passed fresh order of transfer in respect of the appellants, which was challenged by them in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 550 of 2025, which was disposed of 2025:UHC:5809-DB with a direction to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to decide the dispute raised by the appellants, afresh.

6. Appellants made complaint before Deputy Chief Commissioner (Central), Dehradun alleging that the orders of transfer passed against them are unlawful. Their complaint, however, was closed with the observation that an industrial dispute can be raised as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

7. Challenging the order passed by office of Deputy Chief Commissioner (Central), Dehradun dated 20.05.2025, appellants filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1058 of 2025. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 26.06.2025, which is impugned in this appeal.

8. We concur with the reason given by learned Single Judge. Appellants were temporarily transferred from one branch to another. As per Clause-7 of Bank Service Manual, temporary transfer can be made for a period of three months, which can be extended for another three months. It further provides that no extension beyond 3 months + 3 months = 6 months can be granted and further that once the period of temporary transfer is completed, the officer is required to immediately report back to 2025:UHC:5809-DB his previous place of posting.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since appellants were permitted to serve in the branches to which they were temporarily transferred, for three years, therefore, they cannot be asked to go back to their original place of posting, at this belated stage. Thus, he contends that three years after their joining at the transferred branches, transfer of the appellants cannot be treated as temporary.

10. The said contention is bereft of merit. Clause-7 of Bank Service Manual provides that temporary transfer shall be made for three months, which can be extended for a further period of three months and no further extension beyond six months is permissible. It further provides that upon completion of period of temporary transfer, the officer concerned is required to immediately report back at the previous place of his posting. Thus, appellants cannot take benefit of their continuance at the transferred place beyond period of six months. Moreover, after serving for three years at one place, employees of Union Bank become liable for transfer. Thus, no exception can be made against the order of transfer passed by competent authority in the bank in respect of the appellants.

2025:UHC:5809-DB

11. Learned Single judge has considered all relevant aspects while dismissing the writ petition.

12. We do not find any scope for interference with the impugned Judgment. However, we dispose of the special appeal, by permitting the appellants to make representation to the competent authority in the bank regarding their transfer/posting. If they make such representation, within six weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken, as per law, within six weeks thereafter.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.07.2025 Navin

NAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb90 46f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,

CHANDRA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAA B21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.10 10:23:52 +05'30' 2025:UHC:5809-DB