WP(C) 6702/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S .S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Apex Bank. The petitioner, who is working in the respondent bank as Sub-Accountant, is aggrieved by the part of the Annexure-B order dated 31.3.2010, by which he h as been transferred from Guwahati to Jorhat. Be it stated here that the said ord er has been modified by Annexure-E order dated 11.10.2010, by which his earlier posting at Jorhat has been modified by posting him at Nalbari Branch of the Bank . The petitioner has also challenged the said Annexure-E order dated 11.10.2010. The only ground on which the aforesaid orders have been challenged is th at while the employees with longer stay ranging from 7 to 27 years posted in Gre ater Guwahati, have not been disturbed, the petitioner has been picked up, altho ugh in his service career of 25 years, he has carried out as many as 10(ten) tr ansfer orders. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed the Annexure-C sta tement showing the names of the employees allegedly staying at Greater Guwahati, ranging from 7 to 27 years. It is the case of the petitioner that while considering the transfer of the incumbents including the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the ba nk authority to adhere to same principle instead of picking up employees at rand om, while retaining the employees with longer stay in Guwahati. In this connecti on, the petitioner has also referred to the Inspection Report of NABARD dated 23 .3.2010, in which under the head Transfer , it has been observed thus :- The bank had a transfer policy in its staff rules but the same was not followed . 74 number of staff including officers were transferred during 2008-09. However , some staff members in Head Office and branches were working at same place for quite a long time ranging from 7 to 20 years . In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank, it has been conte nded that it not only the petitioner who has been transferred from Guwahati but there are other employees including the employees in the same cadre of Sub-Accou ntant, who have been transferred out from Guwahati. It is the stand of the respo ndent bank that such transfers have been effect to give affect to promotion of m ore than 78 employees of the bank as well as for smooth functioning of the bank. It has been stated that altogether 20(twenty) employees have been transferred. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the tra nsfer orders have been issued in phased manner and employees serving for a longe r tenure in the particular place have also been transferred. In this connection, they have referred to the case of one Shri Sarbananda Bora, who was serving at Guwahati for last 25 years. However, Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petiti oner submits that said Shri Bora is not in the cadre of Sub-Accountant but in th e cadre of Branch Manager. The aforesaid stand of the respondents in paragraph 9 in response to the stand of the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, which is in reference to the aforesaid Annexure-C statement. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition is quoted below :- 7. That, although the respondents issued the aforesaid Order dated 31.03.20 10 transferring the petitioner, who has completed only 4 years of service in his present place of posting in the Head Office of the Bank at Guwahati, the respon dents have kept out side the purview of the said Order dtd. 31.03.2010 some of t he blue eyed employees of the Bank, who have already completed their services in their present place of posting ranging from 7 to 27 years, which is unheard of in service jurisprudence . In terms of the earlier orders passed by this court, learned Standing Co unsel appearing for the bank has produced the records in which the proposal for transfer was initiated and cleared. The records have revealed that the petitione r was released from Guwahati on 29.11.2010 and his post has been occupied by one Shri Kanaklal Thakuria. Initially, the petitioner prayed for leave on health ground and thereafter in co nsideration of the representation made on his behalf, the respondent bank modifi ed the earlier transfer order and posted him at Nalbari Branch. While it is true that the records do not indicate issuance of the impugned trans fer order with any oblique purpose or motive, but at the same time, it was incum bent on the part of the bank authority to consider the admitted fact that some o f the employees in the cadre of Sub-Accountant, have remained posted at Greater Guwahati ranging from 7 to 27 years. This fact finds support from the aforementi oned report dated 23.3.2010 submitted by NABARD. Although, it is the stand of th e respondent bank that transfers are being affected on phased manner but the rec ords produced by the learned Standing Counsel, do not reveal any proposal for tr ansfer of employees with longer stay at Guwahati. This is precisely the reason a s to why the petitioner has made a grievance that unlike the persons with stay i n Greater Guwahati ranging from 7 to 27 years, he has been subjected to transfer to various places at-least for 10(ten) times in a span of 25 years of service. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the matter requires a fresh consideration of the respondent bank in the light of the observations made above and the observation made by the NABARD in its aforesaid report. The matter shall now go back to the bank authority to consider the case of the p etitioner consistently with the observations made above. Upon such consideration , the bank authority shall pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 31.01.2011. Since the petitioner has already been released from Guwahati w.e.f. 29.11.2010, it will be open for the petitioner to join at Nalbari, which will, however, be s ubject to the outcome of the exercise now the bank authority is required to carr y out in terms of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of, without however, any order as to costs.