1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7731 OF 2010 Shivaji s/o. Anantrao Deshmukh, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Service as Computer Operator, R/o. 80/B, Shubham Co-operative Housing Society, Zambad Estate, New Shreyanagar, Aurangbad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bank of Maharashtra, Through it's General Manager, Head Office, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. 2. Chief Manager (Administration) Regional Office, C-3, N-1, MAHABANK BHAVAN, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 3. Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, C-3, N-1, MAHABANK BHAVAN, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh h/f. Mr. H.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Joshi, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 21st October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER B. R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27th of July 2010 vide which the petitioner has been transferred from Sawarkar Chowk, Branch Aurangabad to Hasnabad. 2 3. The petitioner has been working as a Computer Operator in the respondent No. 1 - Bank. The petitioner is suffering from serious ailment like chronic diabetics, thrombosis and has also undergone blood hemorrhage surgeries on both the eyes. It is the contention of the petitioner that even according to the instructions of the respondent No. 1 - Bank regarding deployment of staff, the employees affected by serious ailments, requiring specialized treatment, as certified by the attending doctor, will be deployed only at centers where medical facilities for such ailments are available. 4. Shri. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking into consideration the serious ailment of the petitioner and further taking into consideration that he has only four years service left, it is necessary and in the interest of the justice, that the petitioner should be retained only at Aurangabad, at which place medical facilities to treat the petitioner are available. 5. Shri. Joshi, learned counsel for respondents, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner has been working at Aurangabad for last 29 years. He submits that with all these ailments, the petitioner was working here and the bank did not face any difficulty in the functioning of the petitioner on account of these aliments. He, therefore, submits that it is clear that the petitioner does not require any urgent medical 3 attention, so that he should be kept only at Aurangabad. He further submits that in the eventuality, if there is requirement in the future, the Bank would always be willing to take into consideration the case of the petitioner sympathetically. 6. We are aware that the transfer is an incidence of service and therefore, we should be very slow in interfering with the transfer matters. We would not have normally exercised our extraordinary jurisdiction in the present matter, but for an undisputed fact that the present petitioner infact suffers from the aforesaid ailments. The material placed on record would also shows that the petitioner suffers from 40% disability. 7. In that view of the matter, we had suggested to the parties to find out, as to whether there was any vacancy in the vicinity of Aurangabad. The petitioner accordingly stated that vacancy is available at Bidkin, which is 25 k.m. away from Aurangabad. Though, initially this position was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents - Bank, now the learned counsel for the respondents - Bank admits that as a matter of fact, there is a vacancy at Bidkin. 8. The place which the petitioner has now been posted is Hasnabad which is in interior, whereas the place Bidkin is around 25 k.m. away from Aurangabad and situated on main Aurangabad - Paithan Road. It can thus be seen that the frequency of the S.T. buses and other modes of 4 transport available on Aurangabad - Paithan road, is much higher as compared to the frequency of buses and other modes of transport to Hasnabad. Not only that but for travelling to Hasnabad, if direct bus is not available, a person would be required to change bus at more than one place. Whereas, the person posted at Bidkin, would travel within a period of one hour from Aurangabad to Bidkin and vice-versa. 9. No doubt, we would not insist the respondent - Bank to post the petitioner at Aurangbad, as he has worked here for 29 years. However, we do not appreciate the attitude of the respondent - Bank in refusing to accommodate the petitioner at Bidkin, specifically when the post is available there. We appreciate the stand taken by the bank that in case there is some eventuality in future, the bank is willing to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. But, we fail to understand as to why the Bank should wait for sympathetic consideration only till the eventuality happens. It would rather follow the maxim, "prevention is better than cure". Instead of requiring the petitioner to rush to Aurangabad from Hasnabad, which may take travelling time of around 2 to 3 hours, we find that the sympathetic consideration would atleast be require the bank to post the petitioner at Bidkin, from where he can travel to Aurangabad, in case of emergency in an hour. 10. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere in the present matter taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present 5 case. Though we are not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner to post the petitioner at Aurangabad only, we direct the respondent No. 2 - Bank to transfer the petitioner from Aurangabad to Bidkin instead of Hasnabad. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp7731.10