MANMOHAN MOHANTY Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited in the year 1979 as an Officer by the United Industrial Bank Ltd., a scheduled bank which was subsequently merged with the Allahabad Bank in the year 1989. The petitioner was posted at Kharagpur (West Bengal) for the period from August, 1979 to December, 1980 From February, 1982 to June, 1990 he was posted at different places in the States of Assam, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted in the State of Orissa and was elected as the Zonal Secretary of All India Allahabad Bank Officers Association, Orissa Zone from 1996 to June, 2002 (consecutive for three terms) but was defeated during the last election held in June, 2002 for the said post. By order dated 24.5.2003 in supercession of the earlier instruction, the petitioner was relieved from his assignment at Bhubaneswar on 13.5.2003 and directed to report to Rourkela Branch on 2.6.2003. Subsequently, by another order dated 3.9.2003 he was again transferred to Mumbai as Senior Manager and was relieved on 6.9.2003 with the instruction to report the Regional Office at Mumbai on 15.9.2003 for receiving further posting instruction. The said order is annexed as Annexure -4. The petitioner assails the present order of transfer in Annexure -4 on the ground that the same has been made in violation of the transfer/placement policy of officers as per the instruction circular No.5760 dated 20.3.1998 issued by the Allahabad Bank. Therefore, he has prayed that the said order of transfer may be quashed. The transfer and posting guideline has been annexed as Annexure -1. Therefore, the sole question for consideration is whether the management of an organization can pass order of transfer in violation of the transfer policy/guideline issued by the very same organization. This point was settled by this Court in the case of Jogendra Mohanty v. State of Orissa and others, in Vol.47(1979) CLT 73, wherein it has been held that the guidelines created by administrative instruction do not constitute a right. Again in the case of Sri Naresh Chandra Das v. The O.S.I.C. Ltd. and others, in 1996(II) OLR -358, it has been held that transfer/re -transfer of an incumbent is an incidence of service and this Court should not interfere with the same except under very strong exceptional circumstances. It has been further held that how long and at which place an employee is to work is the concern of the employer and not the High Court. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas reported in 1993(2) SLR 585 has held as follows : "Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." In the present case, there is no allegation of violation of the statutory provisions nor any allegation of mala fide is proved. But the authorities while effecting transfer should keep in mind the guidelines prevailing for such transfer and if the aggrieved person makes any representation with regard to his transfer, the authorities must consider the same keeping in mind the guidelines issued for such transfer. In view of the aforesaid decisions, we have no hesitation to hold that the guidelines in Annexure -1 cannot be enforceable by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. But it is for the Management to keep the guideline in mind while passing any order of transfer. Accordingly, we observe that the petitioner may file a representation, if so advised, putting forth his grievances before the General Manager (Personnel and Administration), opposite party No.1, who may consider the same in proper perspective. The representation shall be made within two weeks from today and the same shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt. We are sure, while considering the representation, the authority concerned shall keep in mind the guidelines which has been issued for smooth functioning of the organisation. Till disposal of the representation the opposite parties shall not insist the petitioner to join in the new place of posting pursuant to the order in Annexure -4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application is disposed of. No costs. Application disposed of.