Prem Kishore Singh Fartiyal vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Amendment Application (CLMA No. 12814 of 2017).

Amendment Application is allowed.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amended copy of the writ petition will be filed during the course of the day.

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner has been illegally transferred from the post of Secretary / General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Almora to the office of Cadre Authority, Haldwani and the short contention, which is raised through the amendment, which we have allowed today, is that the office of the Cadre Authority would neither fall within the term "service" as provided in Rule 3 nor within the term "Bank" and a member secretary can only transfer member of a service from one bank to another bank in the service as defined under rule 3 of the Co- operative Banks Centralised Service Rules, 1976. The case of the petitioner is that the continuity in the Bank is recognized and the transfer comes as an exception. The petitioner also alleges mala fide.

We notice that there is no dispute that the petitioner has been working at Almora for last ten years. Coming back to the point raised, there is no dispute by Mr. Paresh Tripathi, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4, that a Member Secretary with the approval of Chairman under Section 8(d) of the Rules read with Regulation 38 of the Cooperative Bank''s Centralised Service Regulations framed under Rule 7(c) of the Rules can transfer a Secretary like the petitioner from one bank to another bank. In this case, by the impugned order, there is no dispute that transfer has not been done from one bank to another, instead it has been done to the office of the Cadre Authority.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 would have a case that the policy of the Government in relation has no application. We need not go into this aspect.

Regulation 38 of the Cooperative Bank''s Centralised Service Regulations framed under Rule 7(c) of the Rules reads as follows:

"[38. (a) The Member / Secretary shall be competent to post or transfer any member of the service as per Rule 8 from one bank to another bank against any equivalent post. (b) The member of the service except those taken on deputation from Government or an Apex Co-operative Institutions, referred to in Regulation No. 17(a) (ii) and commercial banks shall not be entitled to claim any deputation allowance. (c) Transfer of a member of the service shall ordinarily not be made before 5 years of his service at one place. (d) No member of the service shall ordinarily be posted to a bank situated in the district where he permanently resides except under special conditions which permit such posting of Government servants.]"

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4 also has a case that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Almora and actually, he has no right to be posted at Almora.

Having heard Mr. Piyush Garh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4, besides Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the short ground that the Member Secretary was not authorised to transfer the petitioner as was done. In such circumstances, the impugned order will stand set aside only on the said ground. The writ petition is allowed as above, but we make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the petitioner being transferred in accordance with law.