Jharkhand High Court
Samrendra Kumar Singh vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 17 January, 2014
1 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013
W. P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013
[In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India]
...........
Samrendra Kumar Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank of India
2. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Ranchi
3. Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Ranchi
4. Chief Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Ranchi
5. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Kokar Branch, Ranchi
... Respondents
............
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
............
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
.............
By Court Challenging order dated 27.08.2013, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Probationary
Officer on 18.07.2007 and on completion of two years of probation
period, he was posted as Relationship Manager Personal Banking
(RMPB) at State Bank of India, Ashok Nagar Branch, Ranchi on
09.11.2009. The petitioner was transferred on 27.04.2012 to SME RIE, Kokar Branch as Relationship Manager Small Enterprises (RMSE). By order dated 29.09.2012, the petitioner was promoted in the rank of Middle Management, Grade ScaleII (MMGSII) and by order dated 23.02.2013, the petitioner has been transferred to Daltonganj Branch of the respondent Bank. The wife of the 2 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013 petitioner is also employed with the respondent Bank and she is currently posted at Ranchi. The petitioner made representation to the respondents for not transferring him out of Ranchi taking a plea that he is physically handicapped and since his wife is also posted at Ranchi, he may be retained at Ranchi. The petitioner was transferred by order dated 23.02.2013. The petitioner approached this Court challenging order dated 23.02.2013 in W.P. (S) No. 2892 of 2013 and the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 22.07.2013 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate reasoned order. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 has been passed.
3. A counteraffidavit has been filed stating that in view of Office Memorandum dated 10.05.1990, the plea taken by the petitioner was not accepted. It is further stated that with respect to the posting of the wife of the petitioner an appropriate decision would be taken only after she resumes her duty.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is contrary to the Circular dated 25.04.2000 of the Bank and the ground taken in the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 that a handicapped person would not have a right for preference in posting, is contrary to the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2002. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the 3 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013 respondent Bank is bound by its own Circular and since the specific order passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit, the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is liable to be interfered with.
5. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the guidelines/ Circular of the Bank would not confer a right on the petitioner and since, the petitioner has been transferred due to administrative exigencies, the matter does not require any interference by this Court. The learned counsel has further submitted that, the ground taken by the petitioner that, his wife is also posted at Ranchi and therefore, he should be retained at Ranchi, is not tenable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has further submitted that, the instruction issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India, a copy of which has been annexed along with the writ petition, is not binding on the respondent Bank as the said Memorandum has not been adopted by the State Bank of India.
6. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27.08.2013 is liable to be quashed. Though, the guidelines/circular issued by the respondent Bank may not be held to be mandatory nonetheless, the respondent Bank is expected to 4 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013 follow its own guidelines and circular.
7. I find that the instruction contained in Circular dated 25.04.2000 provides as under:
(i) "BSRB should endeavor, as far as possible, to allot the selected physically handicapped candidates to the banks having branches located in or near their home town/village.
(ii) Subject to the administrative exigencies the physically handicapped persons employed in public sector banks in all cadres should normally be exempted from routine periodical transfers.
(iii) Physically handicapped employees should normally be transferred, even on promotion, if vacancy exists, in the same town/city.
(iv) When a transfer of physically handicapped employee becomes inevitable on promotion to a place other than his original place of appointment due to nonavailability of a vacancy, it should be ensured that such employees are transferred nearest to their original place of posting and in any case they should not be transferred to far off or remote places."
8. Insofar as the transfer of physically handicapped persons employed in public sector bank/financial institutions is concerned, the guidelines dated 15.02.1988 of the Central Government has been adopted by the respondents State Bank of India and therefore, the instruction issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India for transfer of spouse on the ground of posting of wife cannot be ignored by the respondents State Bank of India.
9. It is thus clear that a physically handicapped employee should 5 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013 be retained in the same town/city. It is not the case of the respondents that there is no vacancy rather, the petitioner was posted there after promotion.
10. I further find that the Office Memorandum dated 10.05.1990 has been further clarified by the Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2002. Therefore, the ground taken by the respondentauthority for rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking posting at Ranchi, does not survive. A plain reading of the Office Memorandum dated 10.05.1990 and Office Memorandum dated 13.03.2002 would indicate that, the request of physically handicapped employees for transfer to or near their native place etc. should be considered by the respondent authority. Moreover, the petitioner is not seeking transfer to his native place and thus, O.M. Dated 10.05.1990 is not applicable in the present case. The instruction contained in letter dated 25.04.2000 indicates that even on promotion normally if the vacancy exists, a handicapped person must be retained at the same place. From the impugned order, I do not find that the petitioner has been transferred from Ranchi, as there is no post available at Ranchi. The petitioner is suffering from "Post - Traumatic Ankylosis" of left hip and "Coxavara" of the right hip, with Bending & shortening of right shaft and "Steel Plating"
with 63% disability. The wife of the petitioner has been transferred to Ranchi out of turn by the respondent Bank itself.
11. Referring to the contention raised by the learned 6 W.P. (S) No. 5695 of 2013 counsel appearing for the respondent Bank with respect to transfer of spouse on the ground of posting of wife, I am of the opinion that though in all cases it may not be possible to post a spouse at the same place, where wife is posted, however a request for posting at the same place must be considered by the employer. Since, the wife of the petitioner has recently been transferred out of turn and in terms of instructions dated 25.04.2000 the petitioner is entitled to be retained at Ranchi, I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner for being retained at Ranchi has been rejected on extraneous grounds. I find sufficient reason for interfering with order dated 27.08.2013 and accordingly, order dated 27.08.2013 is hereby quashed.
12. The respondents are directed to offer posting to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of communication and production of this order.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, RANCHI Dated :- 17th January, 2014 R.K. / A.F.R.