JAYANTHI BHANDARY S Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions is filed by the employees of the Syndicate Bank, most of them are women employees, for a Mandamus declaring the order and decision of the 1st respondent contained in the letter of the 4th respondent dated 8-11-1995 purporting to reject the representations of the petitioners issued by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to set aside the orders of transfer directed against the petitioners based on the circular of the zonal office, Andhra Pradesh, contained in Circular No. 35/95, dated 23-5-1995 and also for a declaration that the transfer policy contained in the said circular is ultra vires the powers of the Zonal Office being contrary to the transfer policy of the Head Office contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991 and consequently for a further direction to the respondents to continue the petitioners in the respective branches in which they were working prior to the impugned orders of transfer and to allow all service benefits to the petitioners including arrears of salary.

(2.) The facts of the case that led to the filing of this batch of writ petitions are that the petitioners earlier challenging the order of transfer dated 1-6-1995 filed a batch of writ petitions, which were allowed by a learned single Judge. Against the judgment of the learned single judge allowing the batch of writ petitions and setting aside the orders of transfer the respondents-Bank preferred W.A. No.943 of 1995 and batch, wherein a Division Bench of this Court on 5-9-1995, while modifying the orders of the learned single Judge directed the petitioners to make separate and independent representations against the impugned orders of transfer and also directed the 1st respondent herein to give an individual consideration to the representations and to pass a speaking order thereon. The Division Bench also made observations with regard to the fairness that is expected to be maintained by the respondent-bank while passing orders on the representations assailing the validity of the orders of transfer. The petitioners are being continued at their respective branches of the bank till to-day, as the orders of the transfer dated 1-6-1995 are not given effect to in view of the orders of this Court.

(3.) As per the directions of the Division Bench the petitioners submitted their respective individual representations to the first respondent assailing the orders of transfer and seeking retention in the respective branches of the Bank. The 1st respondent considered the representations of the petitioners and rejected them by order dated 8-11-1995.