Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 948 (RAJ)

MOSAM RANI v. STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR

2015-04-28

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Special Appeal arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 15.12.2014, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 16.09.2014, transferring her from Jaipur to Regional Office at Sikar, was dismissed. 3. Learned Single Judge, in her judgment dated 15.12.2014, found that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager on 26.07.2014, along with 15 other employees. All the promoted employees were transferred with change of their Districts. The petitioner had also given her consent, in the promotion consent form, on 15.04.2014, to the effect that she was prepared to work at any Branch/Office of the Bank, if she was promoted. 4. Learned Single Judge found that apprehending her posting outside Jaipur, she started making representations at Jaipur, requesting the bank authorities to continue her at Jaipur on account of some treatment of injuries suffered by her in an accident. She had lodged an FIR on 07.08.2014, regarding misbehaviour by the respondent No.4, of which she had not made any complaint earlier. 5. Learned Single Judge has found that the FIR for misbehaviour, which does not relate to any kind of sexual harassment, was lodged only with a view to pressurise the respondent No.4, to give her posting at Jaipur. 6. We do not find any error of law, or failure of appreciation of the facts and the assessment of the circumstances by learned Single Judge, in dismissing the writ petition. The documents, annexed with the writ petition, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has chosen to adopt the method of pressurising the respondent No.4, to allow her to continue, or to be posted at any place at Jaipur. It is admitted that she has not made any representation, on her transfer after her promotion, to be accommodated at Jaipur, on the ground that she is a single lady and requires treatment at Jaipur. 7. The entire attempt appears to be from the documents, to create a pressure, in which pressure may be exerted upon the respondent No.4, to post her at any Branch/Office at Jaipur. The petitioner had given her consent, to be transferred in any District after her promotion. 7. The entire attempt appears to be from the documents, to create a pressure, in which pressure may be exerted upon the respondent No.4, to post her at any Branch/Office at Jaipur. The petitioner had given her consent, to be transferred in any District after her promotion. Her confrontational attitude was not appreciated by learned Single Judge, and that in the circumstances, in which the petitioner had not made any request for her posting at Jaipur, the writ petition was dismissed. 8. The petitioner has not joined even after the interim order was vacated on 15.12.2014. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank that she is continuing on unauthorized leave since after her promotion, and even after her writ petition was dismissed. 9. If an employee does not join on promotion, he/she is not entitled to any equitable considerations by the Court. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge, are the findings of fact, which do not require any interference. 10. In the end, it was submitted that if the petitioner makes a representation, that may be considered sympathetically. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we dispose of the Special Appeal, with direction that in case, the petitioner makes an application for leave and joins at Sikar, her application for leave will first be considered by the respondents. She may thereafter make a representation, to be considered sympathetically by the respondents, for her posting at Jaipur. If such a representation is made by the appellant after joining at Sikar, the same be considered after disposal of her leave application, as expeditiously as possible.