S C DUGGAL Vs. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PERSONNEL POLICY SECTION CENTRAL OFFICE UNION BANK OF INDIA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner, who is Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Saidpur Branch, Ghazipur (U. P.) filed a writ petition challenging the order of his transfer dated 3-1-1996, transferring him to Gujarat. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 23-1-1996 by the following order: "after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Jaiswal counsel for the respondents we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent concerned to consider the represen tation of the petitioner which is more in the nature of com passionate petition on certain humanitarian grounds. The same representation shall be disposed of within a period of one month in case such representation is made within 10 days. Until the representation is disposed of, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting. " By the above order the respondents were required to decide the petitioner's representation against the order of his transfer. Petitioner's representation against his transfer has been rejected by an order dated 13-2-1996, relevant extract from which is reproduced below : , "it is observed from his representation that Shri Duggal has narrat ed reasons/family problems which are personal in nature for retention of his services in Uttar Pradesh. He is informed that in his entire service of 24 years he has almost worked in and around Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh except for a short period of six months in Bombay. In terms of Regulation 47 of Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, every officer is liable for transfer to any office/branch of the Bank or any place in India. In the light of the above, his transfer to West Zone-I is in order. His representation dated 30-1-1996 is thus rejected. "

(2.) BEING aggrieved by order rejecting his representation, petitioner has filed this writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THIS writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 13-2-1996 is quashed. The respondents are directed to decide afresh the representa tion of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of pre sentation of a certified copy of this order. Till the representation is decide or for a period of two months from today, whichever is earlier, the interim order passed by this Court on 23-1-1996 shall continue. Petition allowed. .