REGIONAL MANAGER S.B.I. Vs. AJAY SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition arising out of an order passed on 6th January, 1993 by Additional District Judge, Sirmou District at Nahan, allowing the appeal of the plain tiff -respondent and con sequently accepting the application moved by him under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure by granting a temporary injunction in the mandatory form directing tbe petitioner -bank to allow respondent to work as clerk/typist (English) in State Bank of India at its Nahan branch till the final disposal of the suit by ordering the order of transfer to remain in abeyance and thereby reversing the order passed on 13th November, 1992, passed by Senior Sub -Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, dismissed his application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) On 2nd April, 1992, a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that his transfer, effected by the petitioner -bank, through order dated 18th September, 1992 from Nahan to Paonta Sahib Branch was arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and nullity and as a consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed restraining the petitioner -bank from giving effect to the order of transfer. In the alternative, mandatory injunction was also claimed for keeping the order of transfer in abeyance and not to relieve the plaintiff in absentia.

(3.) It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had been posted as clerk -cum -typist in Nahan branch of the defendant -bank for the last 4 -1/2 years. Prior thereto he was posted in the inspection department of the State Bank of India at Jaipur, from where he was repatriated to his parent cadre and as such as per the policy and rules he earned the merit to be posted at the place of his choice and in pursuance thereto he was posted at Nahan. At Nahan, his stay was the shortest, as compared to similarly situate colleagues of his. The transfer made on 18th September, 1992 from Nahan to Paonta Sahib was challenged by him on the ground that the Paonta Sahib branch had made requisition for posting of a clerk -cum -cashier and not clerk -cum -typist. That branch of the bank falls under category -A* whereas under rules all work, including typing is required to be done in Hindi and as such the services of a clerk/typist (English) are not required He being an English typist clerk, his services are not required at Paonta Sahib. It was alleged that his transfer was because of victimization. It has further been alleged that three years prior to the date of filing of the suit, one Mr. Pant, clerk -cum -typist from Paonta Sahib was transferred to Delhi on ,his own request mutually with one Mr. Shalinder Kumar, clerk -cum -cashier. Instead of posting Mr. Shalinder Kumar at Paonta Sahib, he was retained at Nahan and in place and stead the plaintiff was transferred to Nahan on the plea that since Mr. Pant was a clerk -cum -typist, a substitute is required in his place at Paonta Sahib. It is further alleged that inter -se transfer of clerk -cum -typist cannot be made in the cadre of clerk -cum -cashier and is against the terms of the policy applicable to the bank employees. The retention of Mr Shalinder Kumar at Nahan was termed as illegal and it is also alleged that his transfer from Nahan to Paonta Sahib tantamounts to inflicting punishment and victimization,