J. Srinivasan vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Union Bank of India and Others

Raju, J.—The above appeals have been heard together and since identical issues are raised in them, they will be dealt with in common.

So far as W.A.No. 882 of 1993 is concerned, the same has been filed challenging the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated

13.8.1993 in W.P.No. 12109 of 1993 wherein the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant challenging the order of his transfer dated

18.6.1993 from Aroakkonam Branch to Varanasi Office at Uttar Pradesh came to be dismissed. The appellant was promoted as a Junior

Management Grade, Scale I Officer with effect from 1.3.1991 and was retained in the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to the settlement dated

31.12.1982 between the Union, the petitioner in W.P. No. 12110 of 1993 and the Management. Subsequently, under an order dated 18.6.1993

the transfer as noticed supra came to be ordered. So far as W.A. No. 907 of 1993 is concerned, the same has been filed against the order dated

16.8.1993 rejecting W.P. No. 14051 of 1993 filed by the appellant challenging the proceedings dated 18.6.1993 transferring the appellant therein

to Annegeri in Dharwar District of Karnataka State from Rajapalayam Branch in Tamil Nadu. The Appellant in the said appeal was promoted as

Junior Management Grade-Scale-I Officer in the year 1990 and was posted at the Rajapalayam Branch of the Bank and was serving at that place

till the impugned order transfer. The orders of transfer stated that the transfers are effected as per the Lateral Transfer Policy of the Bank. The

learned Judge, by his common order dated 16.8.1993 in W.P. Nos. 14051 to 14053 of 1993 rejected W.P. No. 14051 of 1993.

Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the petitioners having been promoted and posted on the basis of the settlement dated

31.12.1992 cannot be transferred to a place outside the State until their next promotion. The appellant in W.A. No. 907 of 1993 contended, in

addition thereto, that even assuming that the appellant was governed by the Transfer Policy relating to the Officers, yet the respondent

Management failed to follow the guidelines prescribed by the Transfer Policy. In this connection, the Transfer Policy adumbrated in the circular

order No. 3300 dated 23.6.1988 and particularly Clause II (VI) appears to have been relied upon. The learned Judge rejected both the above

contentions holding that the settlement relied upon for the petitioners applied only to the employees category and to the stage of initial appointment

immediately after promotion to the officers Grade and that thereafter the transfer of an officer is governed by the other service conditions stipulated

in the Act and the Regulations. The learned Judge also held that the minutes of the meeting held on 12.5.1993 between the Management and the

All India Union Bank Officers Federation, the majority Union representing the Officers, would also govern the case on hand. So far as the violation

of the guideline''s for transfer alleged is concerned, the learned Judge held that the guidelines have not been violated. Aggrieved, the above writ

appeals came to be filed.

Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel who made the leading submissions in the above writ appeals, contended that the learned single Judge has

not properly construed the terms of the settlement dated 31.12.1992 and 10.10.1992, that there is no scope for transferring the appellants to a

place outside the State until their next promotion and that at any rate without following the procedure u/s 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

for altering the conditions of service or in the absence of a subsequent settlement/award, the rights of the appellants could not have been interfered

with by the management-Bank. The learned Counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 907 of 1993, while pleading and reiterating the ground of

alleged violation of the guidelines in the transfer policy itself, urged that there are sufficient number of vacancies in this State itself to accommodate

the appellants and there is no merit in the plea of the Management-Bank to the contra. The learned Counsel for the Bank, while adopting the ratio

and reasons assigned by the learned single Judge, contended that no interference is called for with the well considered decision of the learned

Judge and that the alleged violation of the guidelines no merit and the plea about the availability of sufficient vacancies to accommodate the

appellants has no basis whatsoever.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The conditions of service of the Officers of the

Bank are also governed by the Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, made by the Board of Directors in exercise of the

provisions contained in Section 19 read with Sub-section(2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking)

Act, 1970 and those Regulations have come into force from 1.7.1979. It is seen that as per Regulation 47 every officer is liable for transfer to any

office or branch of the Management-Bank or to any place in India. The appellants mainly placed reliance upon the settlements dated 31.12.1982

and 10.10.1992 governing the promotion policy. The agreement dated 31.12.1982 purporting to evolve a revised promotion agreement for award

staff of the Bank among other things as also the agreement dated 10.10.1992 have been extracted by the learned Judge in his orders under appeal

and it is unnecessary for us to do the same presently.

The relevant clauses in the agreement dated 31.12.1982 under the caption ""operation of the merit list"", Clause II (a) (x) of the Transfer Policy

and Clause 1-2 of the agreement dated 10.10.1992 have been read to us repeatedly by the learned Counsel to impress upon us and substantiate

their stand on behalf of the appellants. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration over the said stipulations keeping in view the context as

also the scope and purport of those stipulations. The relevant clauses in the agreement only govern, in our view, the promotion to officers cadre

and posting immediately thereon, as rightly stated by the learned Judge as ""initial posting"" on promotion. The language of the clauses in the

agreement leave no room for any doubt in this regard that they pertain to filling up of vacancies and posting of personnel who are promotee

officers. They have no relevance, in our view, to any subsequent transfer of personnel and the promotion policy. Particularly Clause II(a)(x) relied

upon very much is also concerned only with the transfer of officers promoted from clerical cadre to officers cadre back to their parent-home State

for being so posted in the promoted category of promotee officers. On and after appointment and posting in the promoted category of posts, the

identity of the personnel as promotee officers is lost and they become part of the other staff of Junior Management Grade-Scale I and thereafter

become subject and amenable to the normal conditions of service including the liability to be transferred. The provisions in the settlements relied

upon for the appellants cannot be construed as according any immunity from being transferred even after their appointment and posting in the

promoted category of post of an officer grade till the next or further promotion of the officer. That apart, we are also in entire agreement with the

conclusion of the learned judge that the respective area covered by the Settlements in question and those covered by the Staff Regulations

providing for transfer are distinct and totally different. Consequently, the settlements in question cannot be used as a shield to protect the promoted

officers from subsequent transfers as officers of the Bank for all time to come till the next promotion of such Officer.

A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Hon''ble The Chief Justice) was a party in A. Ramar v. The Chairman and Managing

Director, Union Bank of India, Bombay-21 W.A. No. 11 of 1995 and C.M.P. No. 151 of 1995, dated 22.2.1995, in a case arising under almost

similar circumstances concerning the very Bank in question before us held that transfer is a necessary concomitance of every service and the courts

in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not exercise supervisory control over the orders of transfer passed by

the Departmental Authorities and that transfer of public servants made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be normally or

very lightly interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the grounds of violation of any

Statutory Rule or on the Ground of mala fides. In arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Judges of the Division Bench also adverted to and

applied the ratio of the latest pronouncements of the Apex Court on the subject. The principles laid down therein also squarely apply to the cases

on hand.

The further question that requires to be considered is as to whether the impugned orders of transfers in these cases can be said to be vitiated for

any of the grounds referred to above. In view of the conclusion of ours supra that the Settlements relied upon for the appellants do not substantiate

the claim of the appellants, there is no difficulty in holding that the orders of transfer under challenge are not violative of any Statute or Statutory

Rule. The fact that the very transfer policy provides for transfer back of officers serving outside the State to their home State and that there has

been changes effected appropriately pursuant to the meeting and agreement on 12.5.1993 enabling the transfer of Junior most officers who have

completed two years would also go to show that the impugned transfers have been affected only as per settled norms and not on account of any

vindictiveness towards any individual incumbent in office. The agreement entered into with the majority Union in the Bank on 12.5.1993 are not

only binding upon the petitioners but cannot also be said to be opposed to the transfer policy. As a matter of fact, the transfer of the junior most

officers who have served for two years in the Home State immediately after promotion becomes necessary and inevitable to effectively implement

the policy and the provisions under the 1982 Settlement itself providing for bringing back to Home State Officers who are posted outside and

could not be brought back even after the expiry of three years. Therefore, the transfers effected by the Management of the Bank under challenge

cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable too. On the above view, we do not feel obliged to take a view different than the one taken by

the learned single Judge in the cases before us.

The additional issue raised in W.A. No. 907 of 1993 about the alleged violation of the guidelines in the transfer policy also does not appeal to

us. It has been often held by this Court as also the Supreme Court of India that guidelines, circulars and instructions relating to transfers do not

confer any vested right and there are merely guidelines. The plea on behalf of this appellant about the so called availability of vacancies to retain

him cannot be accepted by us in the absence of positive and substantial material. Even if the position is taken to be so, yet it is for the

administration to work out its own priorities in the matter of transfers depending upon the exigencies of service, public interest and the rights or

interests of those others who have been serving for long outside-their Home State and the necessity to consider their claims preferentially. While

rejecting the said plea, we only direct the appellant concerned, if so desired, to approach the management to consider his claims for retention, if it

is so permissible and clarify the position that the dismissal of this appeal shall not preclude the Management of the Bank from considering any such

claim and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Except leaving the parties with those liberties, there is no scope for interference with the

orders of the learned Judge under challenge, in these appeals. The appeals fail and consequently shall stand dismissed. No costs.