S.C. Duggal vs Department of Personnel, Personnel Policy Section Central Office, Union Bank of India and Others

R.A. Sharma, J.—Petitioner, who is Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Saidpur Branch, Ghazipur (U.P.) filed a writ petition challenging the order of his transfer dated 3.1.1996, transferring him to Gujarat. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 23.1.1996 by the following order:

After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. K. Jaiswal, counsel for the Respondents, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Respondent concerned to consider the representation of the Petitioner which is mere in the nature of compassionate petition on certain humanitarian grounds. The same representation shall be disposed of within a period of one month in case such representation is made within 10 days.

Until the representation is disposed of, the Petitioner shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting.

By the above order the Respondents were required to decide the Petitioner''s representation against the order of his transfer. Petitioner''s representation against his transfer has been rejected by an order dated 13..2.1996, relevant extract from which is reproduced below:

It is observed from his representation that Shri Duggal has narrated reasons/family problems which are personal in nature for retention of his services in Uttar Pradesh. He is informed that in his entire service of 24 years, he has almost worked in and around Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh except for a short period of six months in Bombay.

In terms of Regulation 47 of Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, every officer is liable for transfer to any office/branch of the Bank or any place in India.

In the light of the above, his transfer to West Zone--I is in order. His representation dated 30.1.1996 is thus rejected.

Being aggrieved by order rejecting his representation, Petitioner has filed this writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Employees holding transferable posts are liable to be transferred from one place to another by the employer on the ground of administrative exigencies and/or public Interest. But if an employee makes a representation against the order of his transfer on the ground of some personal hardship, it is the duty of the employer to consider it. Such a representation cannot be rejected on the ground that the grievances raised therein are personal in nature. It is for the employer to accept or not to accept such a representation depending on the administrative exigencies and/or public interest. But he has to take into consideration the personal hardship raised by the employee In his representation. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa Thevan , wherein the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of personal hardship on account of the studies of the children, has laid down as under:

However, the learned counsel for the Respondent, contended that in view of the fact that Respondent''s children are studying in School, the transfer should not nave been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight if the exigencies of the service are not urgent.

Petitioner has made a representation on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, relevant extracts from which are reproduced below:

(a) That mother of the Petitioner is about 75 years old and is chronic cardie patient living in Varanasi along with the Petitioner and is under-going regular treatment of Dr. A. K. Rastogi a Sr. Cardiologist and the Petitioner is required to get his mother regularly checked at every week and serves a prop. In her movement oftenly during night hour as well as in morning.

(b) That the Petitioner has got three daughters and one small son and all daughters are college school going and son is of very tender age, as such in the circumstances Petitioner''s wife cannot offer ample time to meet the requirement or services of Petitioner''s mother.

(c) That besides, Petitioner''s elder brother has expired on 15.7.1992, leaving behind his widow and a son who are also being looked and cared by the Petitioner and there is no other major male member in the family of Petitioner to manage the livelihood of widow and nephew.

(d) That it is respectfully submitted that eldest daughter of the Petitioner is a student of Class XII (C. B. S. E.) and other daughters are in Class VIII and V respectively. All have to appear in the final examination scheduled to be held in the month of May/June and if transfer order is given effect, the Petitioner daughters will not be able to get admission either at Gujarat in the mid-term of session or Petitioner will have to maintain two establishments, one at Varanasi and another at Gujarat, which shall pose a serious problem to the Petitioner and keep him always in strained mental condition regarding the welfare of the mother, family and brothers family.

In his representation, the Petitioner has high lighted the fact that if the transfer order in implemented, the study of his children will be affected and their carrier might be in jeopardy, because the final examinations are scheduled to be held in the month of May/June. There is nothing in the order to indicate that exigencies of service were so urgent that it is not possible even to postpone the transfer till June, 1996. In fact grievances of the Petitioner contained in his representation have been brushed aside merely on the ground that they are of personal nature. This cannot be done. Even the grievances of personal nature are to be taken into consideration while deciding the representation.

This writ petition is allowed with costs. The order dated 13.2.1996 is quashed. The Respondents are directed to decide afresh the representation of the Petitioner within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Till the representation is decided or for a period of two months from today, whichever is earlier, the interim order passed by this Court on 23.1.1996 shall continue.