This is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of judgment and decree dated 26th November, 1999 rendered by Shri BR Deb, District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No. 39 of 1996, Sri Jyotish Chandra Roy & others vs. UCO Bank & 6 others, allowing the defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.3.97 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division Agartala, West Tripura decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs appellants. The appellants, before this Court, are in clerical grade posted in UCO Bank Agartala Branch. There are some posts of Special Assistants carrying some special pay in every branch of the aforesaid Bank. One person holding the same post retired in Agartala Branch of the Bank, the respondent No. 4, Shri Sankar Bhattacharjee, a Special Assistant by transfer from Mohanpur Branch situates in the same region has been posted in Agartala Branch, The contention of the plaintiffs/appellants is that the conditions of service of staff posted in the respondents Bank are governed by the provisions of Promotion Policy Agreement dated 13.4.1988 that popularly known as Bipartite Agreement (in short Bipartite Agreement) which does not contemplate the filling up of the inquest post of Special Assistant by transfer. The circular order dated 14th May, 1994 (Annexure A) issued by the respondent Bank providing for filling up of the post of Special Assistants by transfer cannot bye pass the Bipartite Agreement between the parties. The learned trial Court agreed with the contention of the plaintiffs appellants decreed the suit. In the first appeal the learned appellate Court has repealed the contentions of the plaintiffs/appellants and dismissed the suit para 5.6.9 of the Bipartite Agreement provide as follows : 2. The sole decision which arises for determination in the case is whether in terms of the Bipartite Agreement which is undisputedly binding on both the parties, it is open to the respondent Bank to fill up the post of Special Assistant in the event of retirement, death or transfer by transfer of one Special Assistant from one branch to another branch situate in the same region. Para 5.6.1 and “Para 5.6.1 : Functional Special Allowance posts in the clerical cadre viz. Para 5.6.1 and “Para 5.6.1 : Functional Special Allowance posts in the clerical cadre viz. Special Assistant, Head Cashier category 'E', Assistant Head Cashier, Teller, Cashier-in-charge, Stenographer, Operators of Machines of all types for which Special Allowance is provided under the Bipartite Settlements shall be filled up by open notification on the basis of region wise common seniority (region defined hereafter) subject to fulfillment of the conditions provided. Employees working in both Cash and Accounts Departments shall be eligible for all the posts mentioned above. However, employees who do not accept work in both Cash and Accounts Departments in terms of para be eligible for functional allowance posts in the respective departments only. Note: An employee posted in any higher functional special allowance bearing post will not be entitled to apply for any post carrying lower functional special allowance in clerical cadre. Para 5.6.9: The selection to functional special allowance posts mentioned above will be made by open notification on the basis of region wise common seniority (determined through current seniority list) subject to fulfilling the other requirements prescribed. Those who respond to the notification within the stipulated time will be considered. Selection in any functional special allowance post in the clerical cadre shall be effective from a fixed date subsequent to the date of the letter informing the employee about his selection.” 3. The provisions contained in the aforesaid paragraphs of the Bipartite Agreement clearly reveal that the special posts shall be filled up by open notification on the basis of region wise common seniority. In view of provisions contained in the paragraphs, it is clear that any vacancy in the post of Special Assistant is to be filled up from region wise common seniority list. In view of the provision contained in the paragraphs of the Bipartite Agreement, it is not open to the plaintiff/appellants to contend that the vacancy in the post of Special Assistant can be filled up only by posting persons from that very branch in which the vacancy has occurred. The Bipartite Agreement does not contemplate that in the event of vacancy on the post of Special Assistant in a particular branch or the office, a special selection for the post or a select list for that branch has to be prepared only. The Bipartite Agreement does not contemplate that in the event of vacancy on the post of Special Assistant in a particular branch or the office, a special selection for the post or a select list for that branch has to be prepared only. The transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incidence of service, it is always open to the employer to transfer its employee from one place to another, may be on administrative grounds or on the request of the employee. It is true that the Bipartite Agreement <does not speak about transfer d but, at the same time, it does not put embargo on the right of the employer to transfer one official from one place to another place. The circular order dated 14th May, 1994 (Annexure A) in no way it is contrary to the terms and conditions and spirit of the Bipartite Agreement. 4. The learned first appellate Court was wholly justified in repelling the contentions of the plaintiffs appellants. The appeal has, therefore, no force and merit. The appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear the costs of all the Courts themselves.