STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. R P KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 read withSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) by the State Bankof India (for short the bank) and others is directed against the appellateorder dated 28/06/1993oftbeld. Senior Sub Judge, Delhi allowing theappeal against the order dated 26/04/1993 of the Id. Sub. Judge andsetting aside the latter's order made in respondent's/employee's applicationunder Order 39 Rules 1 A 2 of the Code in Suit No. 199/93 and directing thebank not to transfer the respondent from one of its Delhi branches toDehra-dun and further directing the bank to assign regular duties to him asper his status in the same branch, he was working prior to his transfer, andto report to the Court within three days the compliance of ifs order.

(2.) The respondent was working as Junior Management Grade IOfficer in the bank's branch at Sonepat (Haryana). He was transferred assuch on 14/10/1991 to Delhi and was given extension in service upto 19/01/1984 i.e. upto the age of 55 years, and while serving at Green Parkbranch of the bank, was promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale II(MMGS II) on 18/12/1991. He was transferred to bank's GreaterKailash-l branch on II November 1992 and on 22/01/1993 was servedwith an order transferring him from Delhi module to Dehradun module,which be did not join.

(3.) On 27/03/1993, the respondent filed a suit for perpetual andmandatory injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2of the Code for adinterim relief against the bank and others, seeking adirection to the bank to withdraw the transfer order dated 22/01/1993and for restraining it from transferring him to Dehra-dun. The said trensferorder was sought to be challenged primarily on the ground that it had beenissued by petitioner No. 4 (Asstt. General Manager, G.K.-I) at the instanceof petitioner No. 3, (Asstt.- General Manager, Parliament Street), who hadheld out threats to him; the order is illegal and mala fide, not passed bycompetent authority; made as a measure of victimisation; the order violatesthe transfer policy of the bank because an officer cannot be transferredagainst his will from one module to another unless he has completed fiveyears of service in agrade in that module, and further that a person aboutto attain the age of superannuation cannot be transferred without seeking bischoice for a particular station and the representation made against thetransfer order was not beeded to.