Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Khasdev vs The Centralbank Of India on 14 July, 2025
1 WP-14828-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 14th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 14828 of 2023
RAJESH KHASDEV
Versus
THE CENTRALBANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Sanyal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhinav Sunil Kherdikar - Advocate counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 15.02.2023 and 21.02.2023.
2 . The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was initially transferred from Betul, which is within Bhopal Zone, to Lucknow Zone vide order dated 27.04.2022. The petitioner alleged that he could not be transferred out of zone by the Zonal Office, Bhopal and he could only be transferred out of zone by the Head office of the Bank.
3 . The petitioner thereafter filed a W.P. No.22344/2022 before this court and this Court vide order Annexure P-1 directed the bank authorities more particularly the Deputy General Manager to decide the grievance of the petitioner within 60 days.
4. Thereafter, the respondents realized the fact that since the order could not be passed by one Zonal Office transferring the petitioner from one Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 16-07-2025 12:04:50 2 WP-14828-2023 zone to another, therefore, the Zonal Office, Bhopal which earlier transferred the petitioner to Lucknow, modified the order and transferred the petitioner to Shahdol, which is within Bhopal Zone. This was done by order Annexure P-2 dated 15.02.2023 and thereafter, he was relieved by order dated 21.02.2023 from Lucknow and advised to report at Regional Office, Shahdol.
5 . Now, it is the case of petitioner that he could not have been transferred out of the zone i.e. from Lucknow to Shahdol by the Zonal Office Bhopal and this could only have been done by the Head Office of the Bank, because it amounts to inter zonal transfer.
6. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is utterly misconceived because earlier the petitioner was transferred by way of inter zonal transfer dated 27.04.2022 which was ordered by the Zonal Office, Bhopal. The grievance of the petitioner was that one zonal office could not transfer the petitioner to out of zone and this Code in W.P. No.22344/2022 directed the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Officer, Bhopal to decide the representation.
7 . The order Annexure P-2 dated 15.02.2023 passed in pursuance of order of this Court is not a fresh transfer order so as to count as inter-zonal transfer order of transfer from Lucknow to Shahdol by Zonal Office, Bhopal. It is simply an order modifying the earlier transfer order from Betul to Lucknow, which was ordered by Zonal Office, Bhopal and as rightly stated by counsel for the Bank that since it was realized by Zonal Office, Bhopal after the order of this Court in W.P. No.22344/2022, that the petitioner has been erroneously transferred out of zone, then the petitioner has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 16-07-2025 12:04:50 3 WP-14828-2023 transferred to Shahdol by modifying the earlier transfer order. Shahdol is within Bhopal zone.
8. The petitioner having approached this court against the earlier transfer order whereby he was transferred from Betul to Lucknow and his representation against the transfer order being decided by the bank, the petitioner now alleges that the representation could be decided by the authority, who was competent to transfer him out of zone. In fact, the Authority has corrected its earlier order of unauthorizedly transferring him out of zone from Bhopal Zone to Lucknow Zone and by modifying the transfer order has now transferred him within Bhopal Zone.
9 . Therefore, no error has found in the impugned order, hence, the petition is dismissed.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the position that the petitioner has been reinstated from suspension, he is not getting any salary. There are no pleadings in that regard before this court and this issue is not within the scope of the present petition. It is observed that if the petitioner represents before the bank regarding such grievance, the Bank may decide it in accordance with law within one month.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE rj Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Signing time: 16-07-2025 12:04:50