sm S,^gK- 'liSI.: DSf THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN N0. 3o4^_0003 SB6 ^i IB; K' S: PETmQNER ^•^•^ 't^'c ye-r .•' ^^oP?2-"" VERSUS V.S, Goutam S/o Sri K.S. Goutam aged about 44yrs, Occu-Clerk- Cum-Cashier Bilaspm- Raipur Kshetriya Gramina Bank, KORBA BRANCH, R/o Qtr. No. B-1145, Krishna Vihar, Jamni Pali, Korba (C. G-) RESPONDENTS ^. ^. ^- ChaumanBilaspurRaipur Kshetriya Gramina Bank, Hea.dOfficeBiIaspur(C.G.) Personal ManagerBBmpui-l Raipur, Kshetnya Glamuia: Head Office Bflaspiir (G.G.) General Manager Bilaspur- Raipur, Kshetriya Gtaraaia Bas^B Head Offiee Bilaspur (C.G.) WRia':: MaFiriQN. UMDER:: :AR3ICLES^ _22jfi/22j7 ,a^E CC^Stf'I'WJKOW' OF-INBiI^^INJ~'l8BE-MAI®RE^^ AN £ER]Ea(Hi'»BRL'" :':^ - L' " \ " 'W::[ rt{' \^_^ HI6H COURT OF CHHAmseARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetiTion No. 3044 of 20Q3 V.S. iSou+aw Versus Chairman, Biiaspur Raipur fohetr-iya Sram'm Bank and others o P05T FOR GR&ER ON fT J'ANUARY, 2004 Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Jlidge' 31.12.2003 lillE «:li I.B El HI6H COURTOF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.3044of 2003 V.5. &outam Versus Chair'man, Bilaspur Raipur KsheTriyaiSramin Bank and others Present; - Mrs. Hamida Siddque, Advoeata: Miss Pritha ©hoshal,Advocate: For the petitioner For the respondents Befor®:Hon'ble Shri Justice L.C. Bhadpo OR D ER (Passed on tsr January, 2004) 1. PeriTioner V.5. ©outam who was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Biiaspur Eiaipur; Kshetriya (Sramin Bank, Korba Bronch, has by this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, questioned his transferorder dated 15 September, 2003, whereby he has been transferred from Korba Branch to Hasaud Branch. 2. The main grievdnce of the petitioner is that he has been transferred with a inala fide intention and in a vindictive manner contrary to the transfer" poiicy, because the petitioner bein9 a SecrefarY of the S'haff Union used -To raise employees' issues and in That connectiori he;ihad -filed writ petitions namely, W.P.Nos.962/2002 <& 2522/2Q011 fori^iisihg salary and ofher dliowdncesdnd also for grant of increments. further case is tbort' his two chtldren are studying in the Central ^ltidQ^ Jamnipali, Korba, and he has biaen trahsferred in mid session, w^^fe^xs, ,as per the general policy the transfers are to be affeclBdlin b^tween the-months of April and June. Normally, a Cler'k-cum-Cashier, the transfer pblicy, js allowed to workl.ip to five yectrs in dne brdrjc^ His per ""nH'aj lailfci 3. On the other hand, the respondents in their return have specificaliy denied that the petitioner has been transferred on a maiafide ground or in order to victimize the petitioner. The pe+itioner has besn transfer'reci on the grounci of cidministrative exi9ency, not oniy the petitioner, but in a!l 18 other Clerk-cum-Cashiers have been transferred on account of administrative exigency from one braneh to anotiier. The policy upon which the petitioner has piaced reliarice has not been approvsd by the Bcnk Board. The transfers are made as per iilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Sramin Boink Officer's' A Empioyees' Service Rules, 2001 ond transfer poiiey duted 18.11.1988, accordina to which the maximum period for a Clerk-cum-Cashier to work in a partieuicr branch !s three years, not five years- The facts alleged in the petition are misleading. Out of 23 yeo.rs service in the Bank, the petitioner was regulariy workin9 for twenly years in various branches nearby Jamnipaii of Korba District. The pstitioner's wife is working in Indo Bermon Petroleum Company Limited, Jamnipali, and the children are staying with the wife of the petitioner. Moreover, the new place of posting of the petitioner is not at a far of place and ths petitioner being a Secretary of the Staff Union can pursue the cases pending in the High Court at Bilaspur as both the piaces i.e. Korba u Hasauci are at a distance of 100-115 Kms. from Bilaspur and from both the places Bilaspur is weti connec+ed. Morsover, the petitioner had aiready completed more than two years and eight months at Jamnipaii, Korba iranch, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is mcture transfer a.s per policy and the same has been affected on admlnistrative exigency. TTierefore, the petitioner's peTition be disirsi'ssed. 4. I haye hsard Mrs. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the petitioner and Mis.s Pcithe tohoshal, counsel for the respondents. s. Learned counse! for the petitioner nrgued on the points almost raised in the petition and submitted that as per the policy the petitioner ought -/^JDJ, O +B +OU OS|D Sj Sui+sod ^O S3D|d +U3S3jd;3t|4. pUD l|ndjUUIDj[" j.O DSJD Aqjoau 3144. ui pauroiu&i jauoi+i+ad 344. sjoa^ A|.uaM4. joj. 'jauoi+i+ad aijj. 4.0 331A.13S ,SJPaA gg |0+04. ^.O 4.no +DL|4. psuou.uaui uaaq sot| +! 'jSAoajo'yy •UOJ4.D4.S SLiO 4-D S44-LIOIU -(-l.j6|3 puo sjDsA OIV1+ pa+aiduos ApDaJ|6 POL{ U3UOj4.j4.sd 31(4. pUO p^.iSJ.SUO^ sjsm s.oiijso^-Uins-^^si^ uss+LjSis . »i3t)4.o ij+im 6uo|p jauoi4.i4.sd si{+ 'u^irif.s^ 3t)+ ui psuoi+usiu' ussq sotj sy -AsusBiX®sAij.w+s.iUiiupD j.o puno^S 344. uo aaAOjciuia ,<uo uaj.suoj+ 0+ +Lj6M s+i uiij+im sonn >|uog 31^4. poijsd +oij4. j.o uoij.3[dui03 s^oj.aq USAS pUD aaAojdua ua jo^ pousd lunuiixniu 31)4. sj pouad S!L]4. 'asiM^aLj+o ua/,3 •ssjo^. hso 4.noi|+!M si sjos/. SAiJ. JOJ. ^JOM 0+ paMO][D ussq aADii oj. 4.1i6no ^auoij.i+ad 8.^4. A5t|od >|uog 344. jsd so 4.Di|+ jauoi+i+ad st|4. jOf (asunos 31)4. j.0 UOJJ.US+UO:' 31(4- 'SJOJ.g^Stl^ '•'oj- os jDAojddo paAiaos^ uaaq .4-ou SDI) [osodo.id SIU+ s+uapuodsaj ai|i Aq p3|ij. u^n+s^ 3tj+ iisd sy -s><oa/\ ss^i^i som +j 996T'H'9? ps+op X3i|od psAojddo si|4. jsd.so +niq 'sjosX SAIJ. SD ps+ssSSns SDWS >)aiijSD3-tun3->jja]3 o j.o Sui+sod j.o iu.<s4. tuniuiXDiu SLJ+ gosodo>)d stsu sij4. usd so puo >|UDg stj+ j.o Apog aAj+nssxg sif+ Aq 996T'TT'8T uo psAojddo som A3i|od ^swuj. av^. 4.01)1. pauoij.usiu ussq .sou 4.1 j.jas+i 4.us>un30p siyj. uj •>iuog 91)4. ^.o uouijroij^ 3^4. 04. (jsuuogjs^) uSSouoyy jajsuag; at(4. Xq |CAojddo puo uoi+ssSons ^o^ 4.U3? ECM ij3?4.i 4.u3t"n30p siiii 'aouojisj pasojd soij >ouoij.iiad sijl ^io^ jssunos pau>ioag 31.J4. i^3ii|m uodn X3i|od jaj.suDj+ sij4. f.o Ados si g-d Siinxauuy •Si^-'uOU) +LjBl3 pUD SJDSA Oftt-1- UOL^. SJOIU 4.SDJ SSUIS BUI^JOM SDM aL| 'AqsusLjj. puo ^002'TO'TI 35U®^si^so^-uins-^iisj^ 40 4.?od si|+ uo LjsuOtig [jsdlUUIDj' +0 6ui>{.iOM SOWI ^SUOI+i+sd stj4. +0tj4.. uoi^isod ps+4.'iiupo UD si -i •^ •AauaSixa aAi+nj+siuiuipG aL|+ uo pajjsj.sLtoj-i. usaq SDL( jauoi+i+sd 31^4. +oi{4. psn6^o s4.U3puods33 ®ij+•lo.j; |asunoo psu.iosi 'puoi) ysij+o SUA UQ •9 -puno.iS spij. D|OUI uo ps^j'sisu'cu^ uasq SDL| aij 'uojUfj j-j-oj.g ai|4. j.o AjG+ajsa^ |ojsua0 D SD s3aAo[dius 3L|+ j.o +S348+UI sq+ ui >|UDg 31^4. ajoj.sq ssrissi stji SUISIIM sAoMfD SDM ^auoi+i+sd si^4. s3uis puo s.iosA sAy ^o^. snui+uos 04. psMoi]D ussq sAOtj 04. of piace, it is 110 Kms. from the place of posting cf his wife who is an empioyee of Indo Berman Petrol&um Company Limited. As rar as the points raised by the learned counsei for the petitioner that the petitioner is Secr-etary of the Staff Uifion and he is reguiarly' raising demands of the staff before tiie aul-horities that is why he has been transferred, but in order to establish and .substantiate this aliegation the petitioner has not be&n able to piace any materiai before the Court 1'hat the petitioner's Transfer is mata fide and in order to hcrass him. Thsre is no rule or reguiation which lays down that the office bear'er' of the Staff Union will not be transferred and moreover the pefitioner has completed mors thnn two yews and eight months o.t oncs ptoce ond the petitioner along with 18 Cierk-cuin-Cashiers had been transfer'r'ed cnd there is nothing on record which shows that the petitioner has been transferred on maia ficie ground. Therefore, there 's no substance in this ailegation that the petitioner has been transferred on mala fide grounds. As far as chiidren education is concerned, petitioner''s wife iS a worl<in9 lady and she 'is an employee of Indo Berman Petroieum Company Limited at Jamnipafi. Therefore, she te able look after' the children and more over the petitioner's place of posting is at a distance of 110 Kms.. he can also 30 ond fook after his children on holidays. It is settied law that transfer of an empioyee is an incident of serv'ice. Untess the transfer is mata fide and contrary to statutory ruies .or pol'c/, •Ae same cannot be chaiienged as the employer csn transfe" its empioyees on th® ground of administrativ® exigency and employe® connot claim particular place of posting cnd tenure of posting as has been discjjssed in the preyious part of this order. On the facts, the petitioner hds not been able to make out a case for judiciai review. In view o.f the above, I am of the opinion itiat the petitioner is not abte to mate out a co.se for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing tlie_yt. aSpnf ooavHa-on -/PS •S+S03 o+ so ^apjo ou si 3^3Uj+ 'j3Asmo|-f 'passiUisip 'A[6uipJ035D St SiUOS 31(4. pUD passitusip sq 04. ajqDij Si uoi+i+sd si^l ",>|uDg -j.uspuodsaj 8i{4. j,o iisuojg pnosoH 01 qououg oqjo'x Uio^,, jsuoi+^sd stj4.. 6uujsj.suo^+ '£002 '.isquis+dsg Q^ ps+op ^spjo psuSndu."