Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 180 (ORI)

Pramod Kumar Mohanty v. Union of India

2004-04-05

P.K.MOHANTY, PRADIP MOHANTY

body2004
JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer dated 18.07.2003, whereby he has been transferred from Bhubaneswar to Salepur ADB, alleging that the same is arbi¬trary and mala fide. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed in total violation of the specific direc¬tion issued by this Court by order dated 27.03.2002 to the effect that Rule 47 of the SBI Officers; Service Rules and the transfer policy of the Bank should be applied to all the officers includ¬ing the office bearers of the Association uniformly and there should be no discrimination. 2. This is the second round of approach of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, he filed O.J.C. No. 7862 of 2001 when he was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Nayagarh. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed with certain observations. Thereafter, without relieving the petitioner to enable him to join at Nayagarh, his services were placed at the Bhubaneswar Zonal Office where he was not assigned any work. All on a sud¬den, he received the impugned order transferring him to Salepur, which, according to the petitioner, is illegal and in violation of the provisions of Rule 47 of the SBI Officers' Service Rules. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the impugned order suffers from the vices of being discriminatory and mala fide. 3. Opposite parties 2 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have stated that the impugned order of transfer is a routine one. The petitioner had worked at Bhubaneswar right from 1996. In 2001, when he was transferred to Nayagarh, he filed a writ petition being O.J.C. No. 7862 of 2001. It is only after dismissal of the said writ petition that the petitioner has been transferred to Salepur. It has also been stated that of the most of his career, the petitioner has worked in Bhubaneswar and its periphery. These opposite parties have stoutly denied the allega¬tions of arbitrariness, discrimination and mala fide in the impugned order of transfer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously urged that discriminatory treatment has been shown to the petitioner inas¬much as though other officers similarly situated have been per¬mitted to remain in their respective places of posting, the peti¬tioner has been repeatedly transferred. He also urged that the successive transfers of the petitioner, i.e., from Bhubaneswar to Salepur, are bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously urged that discriminatory treatment has been shown to the petitioner inas¬much as though other officers similarly situated have been per¬mitted to remain in their respective places of posting, the peti¬tioner has been repeatedly transferred. He also urged that the successive transfers of the petitioner, i.e., from Bhubaneswar to Salepur, are bad in law. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 8 submitted that all the officers are liable for transfer since their service itself is transferable. Therefore, it cannot be said that a particular order is discriminatory and flooded with mala fide. Learned counsel for these opposite parties also submitted that the petitioner wants to remain at Bhubaneswar at any cost, which is not permissible. For this rea¬son, whenever he has been transferred from Bhubaneswar, he has filed cases before this Court. 6. Rule 47 of the SBI Officers' Service Rules provides for transfer, which reads as under : “47. Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation in India”. Thus, every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation in India. In the instant case, the petitioner re¬mained in Bhubaneswar for a total period of seven years when he was transferred to Salepur. This, in our opinion, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Considering the facts and circum¬stances of the case, we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. 7. For the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. We would rather direct the Bank to ensure that Rule 47 of the aforesaid Rules and the norms of transfer are applied to one and all uni¬formly. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is still continuing at Bhubaneswar, he may be allowed to so continue till the end of April, 2004i.e., the end of the current academic session, immedi¬ately whereafter he shall be relieved. There will no order as to costs. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.