IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 2551 of 2004
IN
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 15491 of 2004
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9818 of 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAJESHKUMAR SAMANTRAM CHAUHAN
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & OTHERS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2551 of 2004
Appellant in person
MR BD KARIA for Respondent No. 1
Respondents Nos. 2-3 SERVED
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date of Order: 01/02/2005
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
Heard the learned advocate and the appellant who
has appeared in person.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 3rd
December, 2004 made by the learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No.15491/2004, the
petitioner-appellant has preferred the present appeal
under clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
The petitioner, an officer in the respondent –
Punjab National Bank was, by order dated 17th November,
2004, transferred from Ahmedabad to branch office at
Dhandhuka. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred the above
Special Civil Application No.15491/2004. The same was
summarily rejected by impugned order dated 3rd December,
2004. The appellant was, however, reserved liberty to
make representation in the subject matter of the
petition. We are informed that the petitioner did make
representation pursuant to the said order. Nevertheless,
he has preferred the present appeal.
The appellant has submitted that the appellant
had been serving at Ahmedabad for little more than 5
years. Whereas, several other officers who had served at
Ahmedabad for more than 5 years or 7 years were continued
at Ahmedabad. The appellant was singled out for transfer
out of Ahmedabad because he belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Indulal G.Trivedi v/s. General Manager,
Western Railway, Bombay and others [1985(1) SLR 332]. He
has submitted that in the said judgment this Court has
issued guidelines with respect to the transfer of public
servants. It is held that, “…The general principle of
transfer is that the persons who were posted for a longer
period should be first transferred to another place and
not the persons who are there for a shorter period.” It
should be noted here that the said matter arose from the
transfer of a servant of Western Railway. The rules of
transfer prevalent in the Western Railway and the Punjab
National Bank may not be the same.
The transfer policy of the respondent – Bank
provides that, “…No officer shall remain in the same
office for more than 3 years. The period of stay in the
office will exclude the period of service as workmen in
the same office.” It further provides that, “…No
officer in the rank of Officer Incharge/Asstt. Manager
shall remain for more than 6 years at the same station.
For other officers, the period of stay at one station
shall be restricted to 7 years. The period of stay at
one station will exclude the period of service as workmen
in the same station.”
The above referred policy clearly establishes
that ordinarily an officer of the Bank should be
transferred after 3 years’ service at one station. In no
case he should be continued at one station for more than
6 years/7 years, as the case may be. Admittedly, the
petitioner had completed more than 3 years’ service at
Ahmedabad. He, therefore, cannot have a legitimate
grievance against his transfer made after more than 3
years. No exception has been made with respect to a
Scheduled Caste employee. The petitioner, therefore,
cannot claim a favourable treatment being a Scheduled
Caste employee.
Learned advocate Mr.Karia appearing for the
respondent – Bank has also made a statement that all
officers of the Bank who have served for more than 7
years at a given station shall be transferred out of
station, subject to the administrative exigencies. Such
transfers shall be effected during the forthcoming summer
vacation.
As discussed hereinabove, the appellant cannot
have a legitimate grievance against the impugned order of
transfer.
Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged. Civil
Application is rejected. Interim relief is vacated.
The appellant requests that the ad-interim stay
be continued for a period of six weeks. The request is
rejected.
( Ms. R.M.Doshit, J. ) ( S.R.Brahmbhatt, J. ) /sakkaf