In CWP-20799-2022-PUNJ HC- Petitioner cannot claim to be posted at any particular place as matter of right: P&H HC dismisses petition challenging transfer order of employee of  Indian Overseas Bank Justice Rajbir Sehrawat [13-09-2022]

Read Order: Dalbir Singh v. Indian Overseas Bank and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, September 14, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with a writ petition challenging the transfer of an employee of Indian Overseas Bank, has held that the petitioner cannot claim to be posted at any particular place as a matter of right. 

The Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat upheld the impugned transfer order on the ground that it was in accordance with the transfer policy of the respondent-bank as also on the ground that the petitioner could not have been adjusted at Patiala because there is no vacancy available at that place.

Essentially, the petitioner was transferred from Rajpura Branch to Kharar Branch of the respondent-Bank, which was at a distance of about 45 kilometres. The mother of the petitioner, a resident of Patiala was stated to be suffering from a heart problem. Therefore, the petitioner made a prayer to the authorities for transferring him to Patiala, where he could ensure better treatment for his mother's medical ailment. However, instead of accepting that prayer, the respondents transferred him to a distant place at Kharar Branch. 

Hence, the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the afore-said transfer order was filed. Apart from seeking directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to serve in Patiala, a stay order against the impugned transfer order was also sought during the pendency of the petition. 

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner completed five years' tenure at Rajpura. Under the policy of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner could be transferred within a maximum distance of 50 kilometres of his present posting, hence, with the transfer order under challenge, the petitioner was adjusted within the distance prescribed under the policy. It was pleaded that the petitioner could not have been adjusted at Patiala because there was no vacancy available at that place. 

Having heard the counsel for the parties, the Court did not find any substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The Court observed that it is not even in dispute that the petitioner completed five years of posting at Rajpura Branch and that he was transferred only in terms of the transfer policy of the respondent-Bank. 

“Therefore, there is nothing inherently illegal in the action of the respondents. There is not even an allegation of mala fide against any person involved in the process”, held the Bench while also asserting that the petitioner cannot claim to be posted at any particular place as a matter of right. 

Therefore, the present petition was dismissed.