K PRABHAVATHI Vs. DEPUTY DM MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law and that of facts do arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. Therefore all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioners in these eight writ petitions are all employees of the respondent-Syndicate Bank serving in the clerical cadres in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners in all the writ petitions except the petitioner in W.P.No. 11207/95 are female employees. In these writ petitions the transfer orders issued by the Management of the respondent bank in the month of June, 1995 transferring the petitioners outside the zone/districts are called in question. Before the impugned transfer orders were issued the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 11132, 11133 and 11135 of 1995 were working in the branches of the bank situated in Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners in W.P.No.l1912 of 1995 were working in the branches of the bank situate at Visakhapatnam and by the impugned orders they have been transferred to Ongole in Prakasam district. The petitioners in the remaining writ petitions were working in different branches and offices situate in the twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad. It is averred that all female employees are aged more than 42 years and all the petitioners have put in more than 17 to 18 years of service in the present places of work.

(3.) The impugned transfer orders are assailed on several grounds. The petitioners contend that the impugned transfer orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and mala fide and they are made in violation of the guidelines contained in the policies of transfers evolved by the bank management in the years 1982,1986 and 1991. They also maintain that the impugned transfer orders arenot issued inpublicinterest and in the interest of administration of the bank. They also maintain that as per the transfer policy contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991 the female members of the staff are not liable for transfer and they are exempted from the policy. They also contend that the petitioners are not liable to be transferred outside the district/city zone, as the case may be. They also find fault with the action of the management in not transferring the Special Assistants working in the district zone/dry zone out side their respective zones while transferring the petitioners outside the city zone/district zone and according to them this tantamounts to invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended by the petitioners working in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad that in order to stay back in the twin cities, on an earlier occasion they relinquished the possible promotion available to them in the cadre of officers and therefore at this distance of time when most of them have working spouses in the twin cities and when the post in which some of their spouses are working in the twin cities are not transferable, the impugned action in tranferring them outside the city zone is totally arbitrary and unfair. They also plead discrimination practised by the bank-Management in the matter of creating a liability on the city born employees to go out of the city on transfer to the 'deficit pockets' while in not imposing the corresponding liability of transfer on the employees working in the 'deficit pockets'. Added to this, the petitioners have also contended that by the time the impugned transfer orders were issued they had admitted their children to the schools and the colleges at the present places of their working and if the impugned transfer orders are required to be obeyed that will result in grave injustice, hardship and inconvenience both to the parents as well as to the children. For all these reasons/grounds the petitioners have sought for interference by this Court.