Sneha S v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors.

1 WPC 16874/23 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 16874 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SNEHA S, AGED 36 YEARS AGED 36 YEARS, W/O JITHIN A.S, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KUNNIKODE BRANCH, KOLLAM RESIDING AT 'SNEHAMANJARI', PADINJATTINKARA, ETC P.O, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691531 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL, S.SREEDEV, RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE, KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY, DERICK MATHAI SAJI ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, KGB TOWERS, AK ROAD, UPHILL, PB NO. 10, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN., PIN - 676505`** - **`2 THE GENERAL MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES WING, HEAD OFFICE, KGB TOWERS, AK ROAD, UPHILL, PB NO. 10, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505`** - **`3 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KGB TOWERS, AK ROAD, UPHILL, PB NO. 10, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505`** ``` BY ADVS. Gopikrishnan Nambiar M K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 WPC 16874/23 ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 11[th] day of April 2024) The petitioner has approached this court to quash Ext.P15 Transfer Order by which she has been transferred from Kunnikode branch to Payyannur branch. The petitioner joined the service of the 1st respondent Bank as an Office Assistant on 17.10.2013. While working at Kunnikode branch, Kollam district, the petitioner applied for maternity leave and was granted the same with effect from 12.7.2020. During the period of maternity leave, she was issued with a transfer order, transferring her from Kunnikode to Manjeri in Malappuram district. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation before the 1[st] respondent citing medical grounds and to withdraw the transfer order. Since no action was forthcoming and the maternity leave was due to expire, she applied for sabbatical leave for a period of 2 years. But it was sanctioned for only one year. 3 WPC 16874/23 2. In the meanwhile, applications were called for general transfer on 13.04.2021 and the petitioner also preferred an application and by order dated 29.7.2021, she was transferred from Kunnikode to Kadakkal within Kollam as per Ext.P2. While so, Ext.P2 order was cancelled and the petitioner filed a representation before the 2[nd] respondent and challenged the cancellation order. The petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.18208 of 2021. By an interim order dated 7.9.2021, this court directed the Appellate Authority to pass orders on appeal and Ext.P5 was passed. Challenging Ext.P5, W.P ( C ) 22642 of 2021 was filed. This court, by judgment dated 10.1.2022 disposed of W.P.(C) Nos.18208 of 2021 and 22642 of 2021 refusing to interfere with the transfer order citing that the transfer is an incident of service and no employee has a legal right to be posted at a particular place. 4 WPC 16874/23 3. W.A.Nos.302 of 2022 and 306 of 2022 were filed against the judgment in the Writ Petitions, and the Division Bench of this court, by Ext.P7 judgment set aside the impugned orders and directed the 3[rd] respondent herein, to consider the representation of the petitioner taking into consideration the findings and observations in the judgment. Thereafter, Ext.P8 was issued cancelling Ext.Nos.P1 and P2 transfer orders and directing the petitioner to submit a representation for cancelling the sabbatical leave. Accordingly, on the request of the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to join at Kunnikode branch. She again took leave for her pregnancy and delivery from 30.6.2022 and a premature girl child was born on 14.7.2022. The petitioner, who had undergone severe mental trauma on account of 3 abortions and 3 cesarean operations developed depression and had to undergo psychiatric treatment. While continuing in the Kunnikode branch, the petitioner filed Ext.P14 and 14(a) representations. In the 5 WPC 16874/23 general transfer order dated 22.5.2023, as per Ext.P15, the petitioner was transferred from the Kunnikode branch to the Payyannur branch in Kannur district. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an appeal before the 3[rd] respondent Chairman pointing out the grievance and pointing out the vacancies at Anayadi, Kunnikode, and Pandalam branches. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by respondents, wherein it is contended that the transfer of employees working with the first respondent bank is governed by the Service Regulation 2013 of the Bank and Transfer Policy approved by the Board of Directors. The conduct of employees, including office Assistants and office Attendants, are governed by Kerala Gramin Bank (Officers’ and Employees’) Service Regulations, 2013. As per regulation 74 of the said Regulation, every employee or officers are liable for transfer to any office or branch. Moreover, as per clause 8 of the Transfer Policy for Workmen Employees, the normal tenure of posting for office 6 WPC 16874/23 assistants in a branch/office shall be 5 years. It was also pointed out that the petitioner joined the service of the bank on 17.10.2013 at the Angamaly branch, where she served till 2014 and subsequently transferred to her home town to Kunnikode, Kollam and she has been working in the said branch from 23.11.2014 onwards. The total strength of Office Assistants in the bank is 982, out of which 527 persons are women and in the age group of 22 - 35, there are 373 lady staff. Around 20-25% of staff rotation is done among the Office Assistants at the time of transfer. In each transfer, around 300 applications are received from employees /Officers stating various objections regarding the transfer and requests for their favourable locations. 5. The counsel, Shri.S.Sreedev, appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in **Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Nithya R. Warriar [2024(2) KLT 124]** and contended that a single 7 WPC 16874/23 mother cannot be compelled to choose between her motherhood and employment. Transfer of the single mother to a far-off place is unwarranted and a compassionate approach is to be taken by the authorities. 6. The standing counsel for the respondents, Shri.M Gopikrishnan Nambiar relied on the judgment of the apex court in **Rajendra Roy v. Union of India and another [(1993) 1 SCC 148]** and contended that a transfer often causes difficulty and dislocation in the family set-up of concerned employees but on that score, the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed _mala fide_ or in violation of rules of service or guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. Reliance is also made to the judgment of the apex court in **Union of India v. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404]** , wherein it was held that employees cannot claim a posting as of right to a place 8 WPC 16874/23 of his choice. It was also held that an order of transfer can be interfered with only either the ground of _mala fide_ or breach of law and the High Court should not have dictated the employer as to where the respondents should be posted. Hence, prayed that Ext.P15 shall be sustained in respect of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has, in his reply, produced Ext.P17 medical certificate as well as Ext.P18 representation regarding transfer on medical grounds this year. In Ext.P18 dated 5.3.2024, she requested for transfer either to Kollam or any branch in the Pathanamthitta district. When Ext.P18 is pending consideration before the 2[nd] respondent, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2[nd] respondent to place the same before the 3[rd] respondent, who shall pass appropriate orders taking into consideration Ext.P4 Guidelines issued by the Government of India and also the judgments passed by the apex court and this court. It is seen that there was an interim order granted on 26.5.2023 to maintain the status quo and the said order was in 9 WPC 16874/23 force till 25.10.2023. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents that the petitioner is still working at the Kunnikode branch. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner at Kunnikode till Ext.P18 is disposed of in accordance with law. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits and contentions raised in this Writ Petition and it is left open to be decided independently by the 3[rd] respondent. Necessary orders shall be passed as indicated above within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE** dl/ 10 WPC 16874/23 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16874/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 05.08.2020 BEARING BULLETIN NO. 4/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` - **`Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2021 BEARING BULLETIN NO. 5/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY FOR WORKMEN EMPLOYEES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.`** - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE CHAIRMAN OF ALL REGIONAL RURAL BANKS.`** - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2022 IN WP(C) NO: 18208/2021 AND WP(C) NO. 22642/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2022 IN W.A. 302/2022 AND 306/2022 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`** - **`Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.`** - **`Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 13.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PSYCHIATRIST.`** - **`Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 11.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE PEDIATRICIAN.`** - **`Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 09.03.2023 BEARING NO. 30/2023 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15.03.2023 BEARING NO. 32/2023 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`** 11 WPC 16874/23 ``` Exhibit P14TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 15.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE SCREENSHOT OF THE ONLINE PORTAL. ``` ``` Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY P14(a)THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 BEARING BULLETIN NO. 3/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P17A true copy of the Medical Certificate dated 06.03.2024 issued by the Psychiatrist. ``` ``` Exhibit P18A true copy of the representation dated 05.03.2024 submitted by the Petitioner before the 2nd Respondent. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit True copy of the relevant pages of the service R1(a)Regulations 2013 ```