Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 35 (MEG)

K. H. Zhimo v. Dena Bank

2016-10-06

S.R.SEN

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. K. Khan, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case is that: "This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and or any other writ or directions/orders assailing the impugned Memorandum dated 23.08.2016 and or Order/Orders passed thereafter issued by the Respondent No. 1 therein transferring the Petitioner from the present posting in Shillong to Dehradun without disposing several representations filed by the Petitioner and in absolute non-appreciation of the Rules governing the aspect of transfer as in the case of the Petitioner and thus acting in most arbitrary and illegal manner causing injustice unto the petitioner. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned Memorandum dated 23.08.2016 and the Order/Orders passed thereafter, the humble petitioner approaches this Hon'ble Court for the redressal of his genuine grievance." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petition was filed before this Court, the wife of the petitioner was expecting a baby and recently she delivered a baby who is also not in good health. Petitioner's simple prayer was not to be transferred at this juncture when his wife and child are not well. The same was observed in the order dated 16-09-2016 by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. 4. It appears that the respondent did not give any importance to the order of this Court but rather rejected the representation of the petitioner on 27-09-2016 without understanding the intention of the order. Thereafter, in between the matter was also taken up on 22-09-2016 and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court felt the need for the Zonal Manager, Dena Bank, Kolkata to be present in Court and he was accordingly summoned. In response to the order dated 22-09-2016, the Zonal Manager, Mr. Arun Kumar Paliwal appeared in person alongwith his duly appointed lawyer, Mr. K. Khan. 5. On perusal of Annexure-4 at page 7 annexed with the additional affidavit, it is clearly understood that the petitioner is not against the transfer but his simple prayer to the authority is that he be transferred to a nearer station to his hometown. Arun Kumar Paliwal appeared in person alongwith his duly appointed lawyer, Mr. K. Khan. 5. On perusal of Annexure-4 at page 7 annexed with the additional affidavit, it is clearly understood that the petitioner is not against the transfer but his simple prayer to the authority is that he be transferred to a nearer station to his hometown. The representation at Annexure-4 is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "KHZ/TRF/HO/SM-08-46/02/2016 DATE: 17.09.2016 To, The General Manager Human Resource Development (HRD) Dena Bank, Head Office, Mumbai. Re: Representation as per Order dated 16.09.2016 passed in WP (C) No. 271 of 2016 by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya, Shillong. Respected Sir, As I have informed you and requested you in my previous representation and I have also informed our Zonal Manager in my earlier representations that my wife is in Nagaland Secretariat Service and her service is not transferrable outside Kohima, Nagaland and we have one baby below two years old. Moreover, with joy I would like to inform you that we are blessed with our second baby just yesterday night i.e. 16.09.2016. Under the present circumstances, with two small babies at home and my wife as a working woman as well, my posting/transfer nearer to my family will be of great relief and help to us and it will also surly help me to be even more dedicated and perform better for the Bank as well. Sir, it may be kindly noted, that all my five previous postings/transfers were done in the interest of the bank and I have willingly accepted my previous transfers looking at the interest of the bank alone, however, my present family situation has compelled me to request your esteemed authority for a kind favor. I therefore, in all humbleness would like to request you to kindly consider my representation and transfer me to our Jorhat Branch, Assam which is our nearest Branch to Kohima or to any of our Guwahati City branch or may allow me to continue in Shillong Branch so that atleast the problem of shifting and transferring of household goods and other transfer related difficulties can be avoided at this juncture of hard time. In this time of great difficulties, your act of kindness, understanding and support will be of great help and of great value to us which shall be cherished and remain ever grateful and obliged. In this time of great difficulties, your act of kindness, understanding and support will be of great help and of great value to us which shall be cherished and remain ever grateful and obliged. Thanking you in anticipation Respectfully Yours Sd/- (Mr. K.H. Zhimo) Shillong Branch." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner is ready to be transferred anywhere within Northeast so that incase of any emergency, he can immediately rush to his hometown at Kohima to assist to his family. After perusal of the said annexure, I find that it is quite reasonable and that the authority should consider the representation on humanitarian ground. Though transfer is a part of service condition but it is not necessary that one should always be transferred to far places. I cannot understand why the representation was rejected as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 27-09-2016. However, since the Zonal Manager, Mr. Arun Kumar Paliwal has appeared personally and assured the Court that petitioner's prayer will be considered and he will be transferred within Northeast region of India, I do not see any reason to keep this case pending, thus the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: (i) The petitioner should not be transferred for another 3(three) months from his present place of posting and thereafter respondent authority is at liberty to transfer him in any Branch within the Northeast region of India for another 3(three) years. 7. With this direction, the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of. However, this judgment and order will not be a precedent and will not automatically apply to any other Officers of the Bank.