D SURYANARAYANA MURTY Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the 1st respondent-Management effected the impugned transfer transferring the petitioner from the branch of the Bank at Vijayawada to the branch office of the Bank at Amalapuram on 5-11-1994, the petitioner was working as Special Assistant in the branch office at Vijayawada.

(2.) The petition averments disclose that the petitioner joined the services of the bank as a Clerk and during the year 1992 he was working at the branch office at Rajahmundry. While working at Rajahmundry, he sought permission of the Branch Manager to prosecute Law studies at Rajahmundry and the Branch Manager granted the permission on 12-9-1992. On 19-9-1992 the petitioner was transferred to Amalapuram, said to be the native place of the petitioner, and the petitioner joined at the branch office of Amalapuram on 21-9-1992. There, it is claimed that, he was elected as the Secretary of the Union of the employees. Again, on 29-10-1993 the petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam and the petitioner joined there on 1-12-1993. Further, in the month of January, 1994 the petitioner was transferred to Vijayawada branch and he joined the duty at Vijayawada branch on 5-2-1994. It is stated that while working at Vijayawada the petitioner was again elected as Organising Secretary of the Union of employees. Then came the impugned transfer order dated 5-11-1994 transferring the petitioner from Vijayawada to Amalapuram branch.

(3.) The petitioner has impleaded State Bank of Hyderabad Staff Association as the 6th respondent to the Writ Petition. On service of notice the Bank Management has filed a vacate petition seeking vacation of the ex parte interim order passed by this Court earlier. On behalf of the 6th respondent-Association, both the Secretary and the President of the Association have also filed their respective counters. At this juncture, it may be noted that since the petitioner alleged that the impugned transfer was brought about at the behest of the President and Secretary of the 6th respondent Association, the 6th respondent-Association seems to have been arrayed as a party-respondent to the Writ Petition.