WP/26483/2008 of P.S.V.Sanjeeva Rao Vs The State Bank of India, rep. by its on 24 December 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the transferorder dated 22.11.2008 passed by the 3[rd] respondent – BranchManager, Kaviti Branch, Srikakulam District transferring him to KotaBommali.

Petitioner is an employee of the respondent-State Bank of India. Itis his case that he was posted to work at Ponduru Branch, which is arural village and 20 kms away from Srikakulam more than 18 years agoand since then he has been working there. As he is the longest servicingemployee in rural branches in the entire region, he has been makingrepresentations seeking his transfer to Srikakulam town, in vein.However, he was transferred to Kaviti Branch. Aggrieved by the same,he approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.22824 of 2008 andthis Court by order dated 17.102.008 directed to continue him atPonduru branch, if nobody has been posted in his place. Pursuant tothe said orders, he made a representation to the 1[st] respondent –Assistant General Manager, Region-II, Srikakulam. According to thepetitioner, the 1[st] respondent informed him that he cannot be continuedat Ponduru branch and he would be adjusted either at Srikakulam or in anearby branch. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the advisegiven by the 1[st] respondent to withdraw the writ petition so as to adjusthim either at Srikakulam, Gara or Amudalavalasa, he withdrew the saidwrit petition but surprisingly the 3[rd] respondent – Branch Manager, KavitiBranch, Srikakulam District, vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2008transferred him to Kota Bommali branch against the undertaking given tohim. Hence this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two Senior Assistants viz., Smt.B.Smt.B.Padmavari and Sri B.Trinadha Rao whowere working Ponduru Branch along with the petitioner have beentransferred to Srikakulam main branch though they have put in less than5 years of rural service and rejected the case of the petitioner who hasput in 18 years of rural service on the ground that his seniors areworking at Srikakulam and they cannot be disturbed. That apart, as perthe transfer policy, the employees above the age of 55 years should notbe redeployed and that he falls in that excluded category. Evenotherwise, considering his past service and his age, the respondentsought to have adjusted him in the place of his choice as per the transferpolicy.

On 4.12.2008, this Court while issuing notice before admission,ordered status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained and alsodirected the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank to filecounter.

Conclusion

Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have filed acounter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner has been working atPonduru Branch as Special Assistant and he was transferred onadministrative grounds to Kaviti Branch on 29.9.2008. Questioning thesame, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22824 of 2008 on theground that Kaviti is 150 kms away from Srikakulam but subsequentlywithdrew the writ petition for the reasons best known to him. It isspecifically denied that assurance was given to him for posting either atSrikakulam, Gara or Amudalavalasa on his withdrawing the writpetition. It is further stated that considering his representations only, hewas transferred to Kotabommali Branch, which is a nearest branch of theBank at Srikakulam to work as Special Assistant. It is also stated that asper the requirement, Special Assistant will draw an allowance ofRs.2,500/- per month along with other allowances and that the post ofSpecial Assistant will be given to clerical staff after completion of 23years of service. In view of the nature work to be discharged by aSpecial Assistant, without disturbing the other Special Assistants working at the branches specified by the petitioner, he was posted atKotabommali branch and that the other branches specified by thepetitioner are already having Special Assistants who are equal to hisage or more than his age. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavitthat the persons working in Srikakulam Branch are seniors to thepetitioner and as such they cannot be disturbed and, therefore, thepetitioner was posted at Kotabommali.

Coming to the contention that the petitioner’s juniors aretransferred to Srikakulam whereas his case was negatived, it is statedthat those juniors are Assistants and Senior Assistants and theydischarge normal clerical duties whereas the petitioner is a SpecialAssistant having passing powers equal to an officer and will be paidallowance of Rs.2,500/-p.m. more than the ordinary clerks. Therefore,the petitioner cannot equate himself with that of his juniors who areordinary clerks.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondent Bank The petitioner is admittedly working as Special Assistantdrawing special pay. Therefore, he cannot compare his case with that ofhis juniors who were working as Assistant and Senior Assistant. Though it is the specific case of the petitioner that on the undertakinggiven by the 1[st] respondent he has withdrawn the earlier writ petition, itis specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents thatno such undertaking was given. On the other hand it is stated that thepetitioner has withdrawn the writ petition for the reasons best known tohim and the bank has not made any promise to the petitioner norsuggested to withdraw the writ petition.

Coming to the contention that the employees who crossed 55years of age cannot be deployed, it is stated that the petitioner has notcrossed 55 years of age as on the date of transfer and, therefore, hedoes not come under the exempted category as per the transfer policy. Itis also averred that considering the case of the petitioner only, they have posted him at Kota Bommali, which is only 35 kms. away fromSrikakulam on administrative reasons.

There can be no dispute on the proposition of law that nogovernment servant or employee of a public undertaking has any right tobe retained at a particular place, and he is liable to be transferredanywhere, and more so when transfer is an incidence of service, theCourts should not ordinarily, interfere in such matters. In the instantcase also, it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred onadministrative grounds. The petitioner has not made out any case to saythat his transfer is affected with malafide intention warrantinginterference. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugnedtransfer order.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe petitioner is willing to forego the special allowance of Rs.2,500/-which is being paid to the Special Assistants if his case is considered forposting at the place of his choice.

In the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to submit anapplication to the respondent authorities seeking transfer to the place ofhis choice on his foregoing the allowance being paid to the SpecialAssistant. If such an application is made, the respondents may considerthe same and pass appropriate orders, within eight weeks from the dateof receipt of the representation.

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.

DT. 24 ..12..2008

msv.

Note: Furnish CC in two days.

B/O

ks

N.V.RAMANA,J