CHINTA HARAN BISWAS Vs. UCO BANK
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CHINTA HARAN BISWAS
Click here to view full judgement.
S.B.Sinha, J. -
(1.)-This writ application is directed against an order of transfer dated 12.4.94 as contained in annexure 'B' to the writ application whereby and whereunder tie petitioner has been transferred to Ranipool Branch.
(2.)Mr. Ashutosh Law, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a number of contentions in support of this writ application. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to a Circular letter dated 4.3.89 as contained in annexure 'C' to the writ application and submitted on the basis thereof that from a perusal of Item No. 63 of List of Branch identified as non-family station it would appears that Ranipool has been treated to be a difficult centre-non-family station. The learned Counsel submits that the respondent Bank having issued a policy decision with regard to the transfer in terms of Circular letter dated 8.8.87 as contained in annexure 'I' to the writ application cannot violate its own policy decision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there are other officers who are willing to go to Ranipool Branch but their cases have not been considered whereas the petitioner has been transferred despite his representation which was made prior to and after the order of transfer was passed on the ground that both the wife and daughter are suffering from Heart disease. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Castes and the order of transfer has been passed mala-fide in order to victimize the petitioner in violation of the policy decision adopted by the Central Government and/or the respondent Bank. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraphs 16, 20 and 21 of the writ application. The learned Counsel further has also drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 24 of the writ application and submitted on the basis thereof that the respondents are bound to act in terms of the policy decision of transfer of the Officers and the violation thereof would amount to discrimination. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner as well as the UCO Bank Scheduled Casts and Tribes Employees' Council have made representations praying for cancellation of the order of transfer of the petitioner but despite the same the order of transfer is sought to be implemented. It is submitted that this order of transfer has been passed not on the ground of administrative convenience in view of the fact that the petitioner has already served a rural Branch and, therefore, there is no reason to transfer him again to the rural Branch. The learned Counsel further submits that the wife of the petitioner is also an employee of the Central Government and on that ground too, the petitioner should have been accommodated at Calcutta. It is also submitted that in identical matter this Court has granted an interim order of stay.
(3.)The learned council appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank has pointed out that from a perusal of the petitioner's own representation dated 22.5.94 it appears that the petitioner was aware that the order of transfer in question was a routine transfer. The learned Counsel submits that there is no bar in the Circular letter issued by the respondent Bank that a person cannot be posted in a rural area for more than one year or in a difficult station at Ranipool. The learned Counsel submits that keeping in view the difficulties faced by the employee being posted in such a difficult area the respondent Bank has adopted a policy decision so as to confer certain additional benefits to such employee including deduction of retention period two years from the normal period of three years.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.