IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1239 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15543/2008 Dated 28/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- C.P.RAJAMONY, ASSISTANT MANAGER, UCO BANK, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT T.C.55/2090, KALPAKA GARDEN, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, HRD DEPARTMENT, D.D.BLOCK, SECTOR-1, SALT LAKE, KOLKATTA-64, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, UCO BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KOLKATTA-64. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT, UCO BANK, TRIVANDRUM. 4. ZONAL MANAGER, UCO BANK, ZONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE K.VARGHESE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1239 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 16th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/petitioner who was working as Assistant Manager in the first respondent Bank at Thiruvananthapuram has been transferred to Ahammedabad. It is stated that he is entitled to continue in Thiruvananthapuram as his juniors are available and he is entitled to protection under Clause 26(1)(3) of Ext.P1. Learned Judge noticed Clause 16.1 of Ext.P1 which reads as follows: “16.1. For the purpose of inter-zone transfers officers who have never undergone any inter-zone transfers would be identified first according to their longest continuous stay in the zone without considering their retention period in the zone/place and thereafter rest of the officers will be identified for inter-zone transfers on the basis of their longest Continuous Stay in the zone without considering their retention period in the zone/place.” Appellant, who was promoted to scale III and had been retained in Thiruvananthapuram zone, has not been subjected to any inter-zone transfer so far. The fact that he was continuously working within Thiruvananthapuram zone was also taken note of while applying Clause W.A.1239/2008 2 16.1. Other persons who had been transferred along with the appellant to Ahamedabad Zone are persons who are promoted to scale III only in 2006 and there is no contravention of the guidelines. Petitioner after accepting the transferable job cannot say that he will work only in Thiruvananthapuram. We fully agree with the views of the learned single Judge and we see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks