Subhash Kumar vs Union Bank of India

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned Tribunal rejected the challenge to the order of transfer of the petitioner to Barrackpore on the event of his promotion-cum-posting to the post of Master Craftsman from the post of Electrician, HS-I. Undisputedly, the applicant has been in the same place at Singharsi in the district of Pakur since 1982.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the impugned order on the ground that it has not only supplemented the reasons of rejection of the representation of the petitioner and others contained in Annexure-6 order dated 31.08.2017, but also not adopted the principle of parity in treatment with other similarly situated persons like the applicants in O.A. No. 163/2017 and O.A. No. 164/2017 both covered by the common order of posting-cum-transfer.

Learned ASGI representing the Union of India opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order. According to him, the grounds of distinction are clearly discernible from the reading of the common impugned order dealing with the case of other two applicants as well. The other two applicants had less than two years service of left and in one case, aged parents of 81 and 85 years old were in fact staying with him at Singarsi suffering from various ailments. In the other case, applicant apart from having only one years and five months of service left, had also taken the ground of his own medical ailment. Learned Tribunal therefore only directed the Respondents to consider their representation by a fresh reasoned and speaking order. However, the plea of the this applicant did not find substance as not only has he more than three years of service left, but the ground of treatment of his wife was also not found tenable as he has been living separately from her from much before. Learned ASGI has further submitted that the transfer has been only as a result of promotion of the petitioner and others and is an incidence of service which should not be interfered under the powers of judicial review by the Court.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and relevant material facts on record. We find substance in the submissions of the learned ASGI. The applicant after having remained in the same place at Singarsi for about 34 years since 1982 has been granted promotion which has necessitated his transfer to another place. Learned Tribunal therefore rightly refused to interfere in the matter as he has more than three years of service left. We do not find any error in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.