Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 5 (UTT)

Madhu Maikhuri v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-01-05

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Adhikari with Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the Bank/respondent nos. 3 and 4. 4. The petitioner is a Scale-III Officer in the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Probationary Officer in the year 1987 and since her initial appointment she has been stationed in Dehradun and since 1992 she is working in the Headquarters at New Road, Dehradun. Vide order dated 04.09.2015, she has been transferred as a Branch Manager to the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank at Saharanpur Branch, Dehradun. This order is presently being challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 5. There are two main challenges to this order. One is that the petitioner is a physically challenged woman and has a Post Polio Paralysis and she has also undergone surgery in the year 1996 and presently suffers from Post Polio Syndrome. She has invoked the Government of India guidelines contained in the Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2014 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, which is the guidelines where the subject matter is as follows:- “Guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of persons with disabilities who are already employed in Government for efficient performance of their duties.” 6. Paragraph 2(H) of the above states as under:- Preference in transfer/posting “As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer police/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilized.” 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharad Sharma has further relied upon the decision of the Board of the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, where the bank shall follow the policy regarding transfer of Government of India which is given from time to time. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharad Sharma has further relied upon the decision of the Board of the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, where the bank shall follow the policy regarding transfer of Government of India which is given from time to time. In other words, the office memorandum of Government of India would be applicable in the present case as the petitioner is physically challenged. 8. The second limb of the argument is that the main reason for transferring the petitioner is that petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against her fellow officer and it is under the instructions of the said officer she has been transferred. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, as far as the second contention is concerned, it has been stated that as regarding the complaint of sexual harassment, the matter has been thoroughly investigated by the Bank and it has been found that the complaint made by the petitioner was not proved. An enquiry was done by the State Bank of India which is a sponsoring bank as per which the allegations have not been found to be true and the findings is that “the case appears to be more of one of office rivalry and once pleasant relations gone sour, than of sexual harassment. Most of the contents of the statements of both parties comprise of matters that could be seen as office rivalry and do not appear to be of the nature of alleged sexual harassment.” 10. This Court has further been apprised that against the findings, petitioner has also preferred a departmental appeal which is presently pending and for this reason nothing further needs to be said on this aspect. It is further made clear that the remarks which are made on this aspect are for the disposal of the present writ petition itself and shall not be construed as any order on the merit of sexual harassment which is under consideration before the appellate authority. 11. The petitioner admittedly has been staying right since her initial appointment within Dehradun. Vide order dated 04.09.2015 she has been transferred within the city limits of Dehradun. 12. The learned counsel for the Bank Mr. A.K. Joshi states that majority of the branches of the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank are in rural areas as it caters to the consumers primarily in rural sector. Vide order dated 04.09.2015 she has been transferred within the city limits of Dehradun. 12. The learned counsel for the Bank Mr. A.K. Joshi states that majority of the branches of the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank are in rural areas as it caters to the consumers primarily in rural sector. Moreover, petitioner can be transferred anywhere in the State, but considering her physical challenge a care has already been taken to transfer her to another branch as a Branch Manager within the city limits which is only three kilometers from the Headquarters, where she was earlier working. 13. Considering all these aspects, no interference is presently being made by this Court. As far as the guidelines issued by the Government of India is concerned presently there is no violation as the petitioner has been transferred within the city limits and her new posting is in a branch which is only three kilometers from her previous work place. 14. It is however, made clear that the respondents shall consider the fact that in case the petitioner has difficulties in her work as a Branch Manager. She would also be at liberty to request the authorities for posting her as a “Second Officer” in the same Branch or any other branch of her choice which shall be duly considered taking into consideration her physical challenge. 15. In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.