Ram Saran and others vs Chairman, Jammu Rural Bank and others

Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.—The petitioners in this case are challenging the order of transfer. It is stated that they had been transferred to the

stations which according to the petitioners are hard stations. It is stated that there are other employees, but they have never been transferred to

hard area, and it is the petitioners who have been picked for these hard postings.

The petitionerGhar Chand has remained posted in Jammu district w.e.f. 23.5.1998, other petitioners have also remained posted in Jammu and

they have completed three years of their tenure in the home district. This aspect of the matter has been elaborated in para ""2"" of the objections

preferred by the respondents. It is stated that the issue was considered in light of the directions given by this Court in Writ petition SWP No.

1704/02. After examining the entire issue it was found that the earlier order of transfer passed on 11.05.2002 does not call for any modification

and the petitioners had been called upon to join at their new place of postings. This is being challenged interalia on the following grounds :

i) that there are other employees who have not been given hard postings;

ii) that the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 SC

1955 is attracted;

iii) that this is against the transfer policy formulated by the respondents. In particular it is submitted that para ""5"" of the transfer policy has not been

kept in view;

iv) that the petitioners are entitled to protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and that even in the matter of transfer this concept

has to been observed;

v) that in reply filed by the respondents they have not given the date regarding the other employees who have remained posted at hard stations.

The facts and figures has only been given qua the petitioners;

For this reliance is being placed on annexure `F' with the writ petition

vi) that the petitioners being the members of Schedule Caste category are being discriminated and this is the reason for their being transferred to

hard class areas;

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this court has limited jurisdiction in these matters.

The issue was considered visavis the Bank employees by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as Canara Banking Corporation Ltd. v.

Vittal, 1963 Labour Law JournalII, SC 353. The policy of transfer contained in the Sastri Award was dealt with and perused. There was a

provision that so far as subordinate staff is concerned there should be no transfers ordinarily and if there is any transfer their consent should be

obtained. What was said by the Suprme Court of India in the aforementioned case is being reproduced below :

In our opinion, there is considerable force in both these contentions. It will be noticed that in making the directions as regards the transfer of

workmen the Sastri award drew a distinction between workmen belonging to the subordinate staff and others. As regards members of the

subordinate staff, the direction was to the effect that there should be no transfers ordinarily and there was absolute prohibition against transfers,

beyond the language area of the persons concerned. The words used for the purpose are ""If there are any transfers at all, they should not be

beyond the language area of the person so transferred"". As regards these ""workmen"" the award did not say that ""as far as possible transfers should

not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred.

It is easy to see that here the prohibition was absolute. When they go on to consider the case of workman not belonging to the subordinate staff,

the members of the tribunal however, use markedly different language and preface the direction with the words ""there should be no transfer outside

the State or the language area in which he is serving except of course, with his consent."" by the words ""as far as possible."" It is not possible to

consider this direction as amounting to absolute prohibition words were deliberately used to leave it to the banks to decide on a consideration of

the necessities of its business interests whether a transfer of a workman not belonging to the subordinate staff outside State or the language area in

which he had been serving could be avoided or not, and directing that where possible it should be avoided. We are satisfied the Labour Court was

in error in holding that transfers outside the State or the language area can be made only with the consent of the employees. What the clause means

is that with consent such transfers can of course be made, otherwise, they should be avoided as far as possible.

The aforementioned decision which deals with the transfer of the Bank employees and which interpretates the Sastri Award leaves the

Bankrespondents to make transfers taking into consideration the administrative exigencies of service. As indicated above there was a stipulation

that the consent of the employees should be obtained. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter was considered and Bankrespondents was left

free to make adjustment at its own. As a matter of fact the guidelines indicated from time to time are normally not justifiable. This is one aspect of

the matter. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioners have remained in soft branches since 1998 and the petitioners have completed their

tenure for more than three years in their home districts. Therefore, to say that the petitioners have been victimized is an argument which cannot be

accepted. Some persons have to be posted in hard stations also. Rajouri and Poonch where the Bank has its branches is also supported to have

some staff. The transfers have been made as per the broad guidelines of the Bank and also in the interest of the administration.

This petition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.