Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 685 (TS)

B. Keziah v. General Manager-I

2024-09-06

PULLA KARTHIK

body2024
ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Since the lis in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. W.P.No.18536 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief : “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned transfer orders in circular No.PER/2024-25/34, dt. 10-07-2024 of the 1st respondent without following their own transfer policy dt. 31-8-2016 Guideline No.5.5 and also circular dt. 8-8-2014 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, by transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad-I Region to Signapur Branch, Mancherial Region, is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, non application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving preference under spouse category by posting in any of the existing or clear vacancies which is nearer to Hyderabad or Hyderabad-II Region and pass…” 3. W.P.No.23815 of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief : “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned transfer orders in circular No.PER/2022-23/21, dt. 13-05-2022 of the 1st respondent without following the then transfer policy dt. 31-8-2016 in item No.5.5 and also circular dt. 8-8-2014 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of financial Services, by transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad-I Region to RBO Adilbad District, is as highly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, non application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aisde the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving preference under spouse category by posting in any of the exiting or clear vacancies which is nearer to Hyderabad or Hyderabad-I Region and to pass…” 4. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, and Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Grameena Bank, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, and Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Grameena Bank, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 5. For the purpose of convince, W.P.No.18536 of 2024 is adjudicated hereunder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Officer JMGS-I (Junior Management Grade Scale-I) in the respondent Bank on 24.04.2016 and was posted at Shamshabad Branch. While so, the respondents conducted a general transfer in the year 2019 and transferred the petitioner to Eliminedu Branch vide proceedings dated 13.08.2019 and since then, she has been working in the same place. Further, the petitioner’s husband is working as a Manager (E) at the office of the Chief General Manager (E), Khairatabad in Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which post is a non-transferrable one. While the things stood thus, the respondents took up transfers in the State in 2024 and as per the transfer guidelines, an employee can utilize the spouse ground once in every ten years in case their spouse is working either in State or Central Government departments. As such, when the transfers were taking place, the petitioner submitted her transfer request online on 22.04.2024 and 26.04.2024, under spouse and medical grounds, duly furnishing all the necessary details. However, without considering the same, the respondents have illegally transferred the petitioner from Eliminedu Branch (Hyderabad-I Region) to Signapur Branch in Mancherial Region, and the same is in violation of their own transfer policy. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted her online application on 22.04.2024. However, during the final editing process, in the spouse column, instead of selecting ‘yes’, the petitioner opted ‘no’ which was erroneously the default option. The same was immediately brought to the notice of the authorities through an offline application on 26.04.2024. Even then, the respondents have transferred the petitioner to Signapur Branch, without even considering her request under the spouse category and the same is highly illegal and unreasonable. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner’s service is considered, namely, from 2016 to 2019 at Shamshabad Region (Urban) and then, 2019 to 2022 at Eliminedu Branch, Ranga Reddy District (Rural), the petitioner is entitled for transfer to an Urban Region. It is further submitted that even if the petitioner’s service is considered, namely, from 2016 to 2019 at Shamshabad Region (Urban) and then, 2019 to 2022 at Eliminedu Branch, Ranga Reddy District (Rural), the petitioner is entitled for transfer to an Urban Region. Further, during the transfer counseling in the year 2022, the respondents have transferred the petitioner to Adilabad District despite petitioner’s request under spouse grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23815 of 2022 before this Court, and this Court was pleased to grant a detailed interim order on 19.05.2022, staying the petitioner’s transfer. However, now, the respondents have forcefully transferred the petitioner from Eliminedu Branch, Ranga Reddy District, to Signapur Branch, Mancherial Region (Rural), without even following the transfer policy guideline No.5.5. Hence, this action of the respondents is highly illegal and arbitrary. 8. It is further submitted that since the petitioner’s husband is working in a non-transferrable post and also as the petitioner is the mother of two small children aged six years and four years, she requested to accommodate her in any of the Branches in Hyderabad-I and Hyderabad-II Regions. It is further submitted that as per guideline No.5.5 of the transfer policy dated 31.08.2016, the petitioner has the right to avail the benefit of spouse ground once in every ten years. However, none of the grounds have been examined or considered by the respondents while issuing the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2024 transferring the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that both locations where the petitioner worked in 2016 and 2019 fall within Hyderabad-I region and according to the places opted by the petitioner under the spouse category during the general transfers of the year 2019-20, she was accommodated at Eliminedu Branch in Hyderabad-I Region. Therefore, as per the transfer policy dated 31.08.2016, she cannot request retention/transfer on spouse grounds until 2029, which is within a block of ten years from her earlier request made in March 2019. However, suppressing the fact that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of the spouse grounds in securing a transfer within Hyderabad-I Region in 2019, she has now filed the present writ petition, obtaining a status quo order. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not request for transfer under spouse category. However, suppressing the fact that the petitioner has already availed the benefit of the spouse grounds in securing a transfer within Hyderabad-I Region in 2019, she has now filed the present writ petition, obtaining a status quo order. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not request for transfer under spouse category. In the transfer request form submitted on 22.04.2024, in the column ‘request type’, she indicated ‘General’. Similarly, in column 23, she cited the reason for her request as ‘My son is suffering from speech and receptive delay. Requesting for transfer for the purpose of his speech Therapy in Rainbow Hospital Vikrampuri’. Further, the petitioner is aware that she applied for general transfers in the year 2019 under spouse category, and the said request was considered and she was posted at Eliminedu Branch. It is also submitted that according to Clause 10 of Norms of Transfers of Officers of Group A, an employee is entitled to seek transfer on spouse grounds only once within a block of ten years, and that too, for one term of three years. Moreover, as per Clause 11, after two tenures in one region (six years), Officers are to be transferred to other regions. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for retention at Eliminedu Branch, and there is no illegality in transferring her to Signapur Branch, Mancherial Region vide proceedings dated 10.07.2024. It is therefore prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 10. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the respondents that the petitioner did not request for transfer under the spouse category in the transfer request dated 22.04.2024 cannot be accepted, since the petitioner attempted to apply for the preferred branches vide her application dated 22.04.2024, but the option of spouse grounds was erroneously set as ‘No’ by default. The petitioner has immediately addressed this issue up by submitting a letter and an internal mail on 26.04.2024, requesting the relevant data field to be updated to ‘Spouse Grounds’. However, the respondents have alleged that during the general transfers 2024, the petitioner has failed to indicate the spouse grounds in the request form meant for the purpose, instead, cited her son’s health as the reason. 11. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 12. However, the respondents have alleged that during the general transfers 2024, the petitioner has failed to indicate the spouse grounds in the request form meant for the purpose, instead, cited her son’s health as the reason. 11. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 12. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was initially posted at Shamshabad Branch in 2016 and then, posted at Eliminedu Branch in 2019. Admittedly, both of these branches come under Hyderabad-I Region. For better appreciation of the case on hand, it is pertinent to refer to the transfer policy of the respondent Bank vide Cir.No.PER/2016-17/33 dated 31.08.2016, and Guideline No.5.5 deals with Spouse Grounds which is extracted hereunder : “5.5 Spouse Grounds: In case of any Staff whose spouse is in permanent service of any central/State Government / Quasi Government, he/she may be transferred to his/her place of choice as detailed in the ‘Norms of Transfer’ for each category of staff included towards the end of this policy in the Bank to enable him/her to stay with his/her spouse subject to availability of suitable vacancies. Transfer on account of spouse grounds will be considered as far as possible based on suitable vacancies. Such staff should apply for such request of transfer along with the employer certificate of spouse of a recent date. Where the staff and his/her spouse are both employed in the Bank, their request shall be treated separately for consideration of ‘Request Transfer’ under spouse grounds. They may be placed at the same centre, provided more than one branch/office is available at the centre. However, both will not be posted in the same branch/office.” It is also pertinent to refer to Norms for transfer of Officers Group – A, which are extracted hereunder : “10. In case of an officer whose spouse is in permanent service of Central Government, State Government, PSU may be transferred for one term of 3 years in a block of 10 years period to join with his spouse subject to administrative convenience and availability of suitable vacancies, provided such place falls within the geographical territory prescribed by DFS for the RRB. 11. After posting for 2 tenures in one Region i.e. for 6 years, Officers will be transferred to other Region.” 13. 11. After posting for 2 tenures in one Region i.e. for 6 years, Officers will be transferred to other Region.” 13. In view of the above, it is evident that after an employee can only be posted in a particular region for a total of two tenures i.e., six years only, after which time, they must be compulsorily transferred to another region. Here, it is noteworthy mentioning that the petitioner has, admittedly, served two terms in Hyderabad-I Region. Furthermore, in accordance with Norm 10, the benefit of the spouse ground for transfer may only be utilized once over a ten-year block period, that too, for a single term of three years. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the petitioner has not availed the said benefit during the general transfers of the year 2019. However, a perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was continued in service at Eliminedu branch by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 19.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.23815 of 2022. It is relevant to refer the operative portion of the said interim order which is extracted hereunder : “Having regard to the fact that the husband of the petitioner is working in Hyderabad, the fact that the petitioner is having two small children, aged 2 and 4 years respectively, and prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the transfer of the petitioner to Adilabad is against the very same transfer policy of the Bank, there shall be interim stay of the impugned order to the extent of the petitioner pending further orders.” 14. Admittedly, aggrieved the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner to Adilabad Region without considering her spouse ground, and the above interim order was passed duly taking into account the petitioner’s spouse ground only. Therefore, it is evident that she has opted for transfer under the spouse ground during the general transfers of the year 2019 itself. Thus, she is now estopped from obtaining the benefit of spouse ground in accordance with Norm 10 of the aforementioned Circular dated 31.08.2016. As such, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not availed the spouse benefit, cannot be countenanced. 15. Thus, she is now estopped from obtaining the benefit of spouse ground in accordance with Norm 10 of the aforementioned Circular dated 31.08.2016. As such, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not availed the spouse benefit, cannot be countenanced. 15. In view of the above made discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the transfer appears to be in line with the established transfer policy and norms of the respondent Bank as the petitioner has already availed the benefit of the spouse ground within the last ten years. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the decision of the respondents in transferring the petitioner from Eliminedu Branch, Hyderabad Region, to Signapur Branch, Mancherial Region. However, given the specific circumstances of the case of the petitioner, more particularly, the ill-health of her son and the tender age of her children, who are only four and six years old, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents requesting to post her in any of the existing or available vacancies closer to Hyderabad-I or Hyderabad-II regions, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider her case sympathetically, pass necessary orders on the representation of the petitioner and provide her with the posting in any of the available vacancies closer to Hyderabad-I or Hyderabad-II regions. 16. Accordingly, W.P.No.18536 of 2024 stands disposed of. 17. Coming to W.P.No.23815 of 2022, since the petitioner has already participated in the general transfers of the year 2024 and her grievance has already been adjudicated in the above writ petition, this Court is of the view that no cause survives in the present writ petition. 18. Accordingly, W.P.No.23815 of 2022 is dismissed as infructuous. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs.