AMALESH MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER in this Civil Rule is the Plaintiff in Title suit No. 509 of 1972 in the -City Civil court, Calcutta and is the appellant in f. M. A. T. No. 1941 of 1972. He is a, cashier in the State Bank of India. On 19. 4. 72 he was employed in that capacity in the Alipore Branch of the State bank. In- compliance with the instructions received from the Head Office of the Bank the opposite party No. 2 the bank's Agent of the Alipore Branch, informed the petitioner of his transfer, made by the Head Office to its Rajpur branch. He was not allowed to work as cashier at Alipore Branch from 20. 4,72. He got the order of transfer on 22. 4. . 72. He filed the suit against the Bank, opposite party No. 1, and its Alipore Agent, opposite party No. 2, and played far a temporary injection to restrain them from giving effect to the order of transfer. The learned trial Judge has by his order, after contested hearing of both the parties, refused the said prayer. Petitioner filed F. M. A. T. No. 1941 of 1972 on 25. 2. 72, and thereafter filed a petition, giving rise to this Civil rule, for an order of stay of operation of the order of transfer of the Bank, challenged in the suit as mala fide on the allegation that the opposite party no. 2, the Agent has all along connived at the designs of the Alipore Union of the State Bank of India Staff association to issue the order. He has got an interim order of stay on 18. 8. 72.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 in opposing the Rule submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the order, asked for, as the order of transfer has been given effect to and there can be no stay of operation when the petitioner himself has acted in terms of it. It is further submitted that if the order asked for is given, it will amount to allowing the appeal and creating a situation having the effect of a mandatory order upon the Bank to retransfer the petition from Rajpur Branch to Alipore branch again before the suit is heard on merits.

(3.) THE petitioner however contended that the opposite parties should not be permitted to oppose his prayer inasmuch as the opposite party No. 2 had been made a contemnor in Civil Rule no. 2848 of 1972 at his instance for not having permitted him to join and work at Alipore Branch in the same post after the interim stay, granted by this court on 18,8. 72.