AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner impugns order dated 11.08.2017 (Annexure
No.1) whereunder he stands transferred from Tehri to
Pithoragarh.
We heard Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel on behalf of the
second respondent, who has passed the impugned order. We
see no reason to hear the first respondent.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned counsel for the petitioner would
point out that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.11.2017. He
would further point out that by order dated 26.05.2016,
petitioner, who was working as a General Manager, was
transferred from Tehri to Dehradun. Still later, on 17.01.2017, he
was transferred from Dehradun to Tehri and it is, thereafter,
within a period of nearly seven months that the petitioner is
transferred to Pithoragarh. He would point out that under
Regulation 38(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Centralised
Service Rules, 1976, transfer of a member of the service shall
ordinarily not be made before five years of his service at one
place. He would further point out that the Policy, which is
adopted and is followed by the Bank, in relation to transfer,
stipulates that a person should not be transferred when he has
less than 2 years to retire. The home district of the petitioner is
Tehri and he has been transferred to Tehri by order dated
17.01.2017.
When, we asked Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 to get instructions, he got instructions. He
would submit that actually, the reason for transfer of the
petitioner is that there is no one to man the post of General
Manager at Pithoragarh, and at Tehri, there are two General
Managers. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. B.P.S. Mer
would then point out that the petitioner is due to retire within
seven months and then anyone else has to be posted there.
In this case, we find that there are no allegations of mala
fide. As far as Regulation 38(c) of the Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Centralised Service Rules, 1976 is concerned, no
doubt, it provides that ordinarily a person is to be posted for a
period of five years.
In the circumstances of the case, we would think that the
interest of justice would be sub-served if we permit the
petitioner to represent his grievance and a decision is taken on
the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:
If the petitioner represents before the second respondent
within a period of one day from today, a decision will be taken
on the same, in accordance with law and also taking note of the
Policy, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of
the representation.
Till such time, the impugned order will be kept in
abeyance.
Let certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.