High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-01-10The writ petitions are disposed of. The sabbati...

Sneha S v Kerala Gramin Bank (W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021)

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.G. Arun
Judgment Date: 2022-01-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of: (i) Sabbatical leave granted to extend by four weeks, provided the petitioner submits an extension application within three weeks; the extension shall be granted within two weeks thereafter. (ii) If the petitioner submits an application for transfer during the next general transfer, it shall be considered uninfluenced by the earlier proceedings. The Court thereby preserves administrative discretion while acknowledging health-related concerns and allowing a limited remedy.
Final Disposition: The writ petitions are disposed of. The sabbatical leave already granted shall be extended by four weeks, provided the petitioner submits an extension application within three weeks; such extension shall be deemed to have been granted within two weeks. If the petitioner files an application for transfer during the general transfer for the next year, it shall be considered uninfluenced by the earlier proceedings. The court thus balances administrative discretion with health considerations and preserves the possibility of future transfer under normal processes.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sneha S

Respondents

Kerala Gramin Bank Head Office, Malappuram
Chairman, Kerala Gramin Bank, Head Office, Malappuram
General Manager, HR Department, Kerala Gramin Bank, Head Office, Malappuram
Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, KunNiKodE Branch, Kollam District
Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, Kadakkal Branch, Kollam District
Branch Manager, Manjeri Branch, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.V. Thamban
• K.V. Anil Kumar
• R. Reji
• Thara Thamban
• B. Bipin

Counsels for Respondents

• M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
• K. John Mathai
• Joson Manavalan
• Kuryan Thomas
• Pauloose C. Abraham

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Sneha S, an Office Assistant at the KunniKode Branch of Kerala Gramin Bank, challenged a transfer order and subsequent actions taken during/after her maternity leave. She had entered maternity leave from 12 July 2020 and was initially transferred from KunniKode to Manjeri on 5 August 2020 (Ext.P1). While on leave, she made representations asking for a transfer closer to Kollam district due to medical issues, including multiple caesarean sections, abortions, and post-partum depression, and the need to avoid prolonged travel. She availed sabbatical leave (extending into 2021) and applied for a general transfer in April 2021; a general transfer order dated 29 July 2021 transferred her to Kadakkal, which was later cancelled by an order dated 3 August 2021 (Ext.P4). The petition challenged the cancellation (Ext.P7), arguing due process and health grounds; the respondents argued that transfers are administrative decisions dictated by exigencies of service and there is no right to a particular posting. The Court noted that Ext.P1 remained valid and that Ext.P3 may have been a mistaken order. It held that judicial intervention in transfer matters is limited but can address mala fides or perversity. It extended the sabbatical by four weeks, subject to extension application, and allowed consideration of transfer in the next general transfer without prejudice to earlier orders, thereby balancing administrative discretion with health concerns.

Provisions of Law Cited

Clause 16(1)(b) and (f) of the transfer normsClauses 8 and 11 of the Guidelines

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Judicial intervention in transfer matters is limited; it is for the employer to transfer employees based on exigencies of service.
No employee has a legal right to be posted at a particular place; health considerations may be weighed but do not automatically mandate interference.
Doctrine of mala fides, malice, substantial legal and factual perversity or arbitrariness as grounds for intervention in administrative orders.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 transfer was issued after due process and that Ext.P7 cancels the transfer; medical evidence (Exts.P10-P12) shows multiple pregnancies and treatments necessitating limited travel and closer medical supervision. She argues there were vacancies in Kollam district (Kadakkal or nearby) and that Clauses 8 and 11 of the Guidelines and Clause 16(1)(b) and (f) of the transfer norms provide preferential consideration in exceptional health cases. The sabbatical extension dated 11.01.2022 and the need to avoid prolonged journeys due to health risks are central to her request for relief; she seeks extension and a chance to be considered in the general transfer cycle.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents emphasize that transfer is an administrative function and cannot be compelled to a particular location; Ext.P1 transfer to Manjeri stands as a valid order, while Ext.P3 appears to be a mistaken post, corrected after discovery. They rely on Supreme Court authorities (Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani; Gobardhan Lal; Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit) to argue that health grounds alone do not automatically invalidate transfer orders and that the Court’s interference in transfers is limited. They contend vacancies cannot be guaranteed at Kadakkal/Chathannoor, and that the proper redress is via sabbatical extension or fresh transfer applications during the next general transfer cycle.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani	(1989) 2 SCC 602	Positive	Cited to emphasize the limited scope of judicial interference in transfer orders and the need to respect administrative exigencies.
State of U.P and others v. Gobardhan Lal	(2004) 11 SCC 402	Positive	Cited as authority for prudent and restrained judicial scrutiny in administrative transfer decisions.
Union of India and another v Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit	(2020) 3 SCC 404	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that health grounds alone may not compel interference with transfers; relied upon by respondents.
Santhosh K and another v. Chief Engineer (HRM), KSEB, Trivandrum	2013 (4) KHC 624	Positive	Cited to reflect that judicial intervention is limited but may consider mala fides, malice, or arbitrariness in transfer orders.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sneha S v Kerala Gramin Bank (W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18208 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SNEHA.S AGED 34 YEARS W/O. JITHIN.A.S., OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KUNNIKODE BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 531, RESIDING AT 'SHEHAMANJARI', PADINJATTINKARA, ETC P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 531 BY ADVS. M.V.THAMBAN K.V.ANIL KUMAR R.REJI THARA THAMBAN B.BIPIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK AGED 34 YEARS HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505 3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, H.R.DEPARTMENT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KUNNIKODE BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 531 5 THE BRANCH MANAGER KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KADAKKAL BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691 536 W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 **==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).22642/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -3- **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22642 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** SNEHA S AGED 34 YEARS W/O JITHIN.A.S, OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KUNNIKODE BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691531. RESIDING AT SNEHAMANJARI, PADINJATTINKARA, ETC.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691531. BY ADVS. M.V.THAMBAN THARA THAMBAN R.REJI ARUN BOSE SUNEESH KUMAR R. B.BIPIN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505. 3 THE CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KGB TOWERS, A.K.ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676505. 4 THE GENERAL MANAGER H.R.DEPARTMENT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -4- MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505. 5 THE BRANCH MANAGER KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KUNNIKODE BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691531. 6 THE BRANCH MANAGER. KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KADAKKKAL BRANCH, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691536. 7 THE BRANCH MANAGER, MANJERI BRANCH, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, MANJERI.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676122. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).18208/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -5- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 10[th] day of January, 2022 The petitioner had joined the service as an Office Assistant at the Kunnikode Branch of the first respondent Bank on 17.10.2013. While working at the Branch, she entered maternity leave with effect from 12.07.2020. While continuing on leave, the petitioner was transferred from Kunnikode to Manjeri in Malappuram District, vide Ext.P1 order dated 05.08.2020. The petitioner filed a representation before the HR Department on 10.08.2020 ventilating her grievance against the transfer. She followed up the first request with another representation dated 02.12.2020, highlighting her medical condition and also pointing out that vacancies are available in Kollam District itself. Her request was not considered and in the ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -6- meanwhile, her maternity leave expired on 11.02.2021. Faced with such a situation, petitioner submitted an application for sabbatical leave for a period of two years from 01.01.2021 and was granted leave for a period of one year. While so, applications for general transfer were called for. The petitioner submitted her application on 13.04.2021. Accordingly, she was transferred from Kunnikode to Kadakkal branch in Kollam District itself vide Ext.P3 general transfer order dated 29.07.2021. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P4 order dated 03.08.2021 was issued, cancelling petitioner's transfer. Aggrieved, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18208 of 2021, claiming preferential status by virtue of Clause 16(1)(b) and (f) of the transfer norms. This Court passed an interim order on 07.09.2021, requiring the appellate authority to pass orders on Ext.P5 ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 **==> picture [16 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** appeal. Thereupon, Ext.P7 order was issued by the appellate authority, holding that the subsequent order of transfer dated 29.07.2021 was erroneous and the petitioner's original transfer from Kunnikode to Manjeri still stands. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order. 2. Heard. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner having been transferred vide Ext.P3, after due process, the respondents have committed gross illegality in cancelling that order without assigning any valid reason. It is submitted that the petitioner had made Ext.P13 request at the time of general transfer, pointing out valid reasons which were considered favourably and a draft proposal of general transfer published. Therein the petitioner was proposed to be transferred from W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -8- Kunnikode to Kadakkal. No objection was raised against the proposal, which resulted in Ext.P3 order of transfer. As such, there is no justification in the stand taken by the respondents that Ext.P3 transfer order insofar as it concerns the petitioner, is erroneous and Ext.P1 stands. 4. On the merits of the request for transfer made by the petitioner, it is pointed out that, as evidenced by Exts.P10, P11 and P12, the petitioner had undergone two caesarian sections and one abortion in the last two years and was advanced to avoid pregnancy, prolonged travel and strenuous exercise for the coming two years. Adding to her woes, the petitioner had to undergo treatment for post-partum depression following pregnancy loss. Ext.P12 medical certificate reveals that the petitioner was pregnant by six weeks as on 15.12.2021 and ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -9- considering the history of three abortions including in an infra uterine foetal demise at 8 months, has been advised to avoid prolonged travel, to undergo checkups and the need for constant family support through out the period of pregnancy. It is submitted that these factors had prompted the authority to consider petitioner's request for transfer favourably, for issuing Ext.P3 order. 4. Learned Counsel points out that the petitioner's sabbatical is due to expire on 11.01.2022 and if compelled to join at Manjeri, petitioner will be put to extreme hardship and prejudice. Reliance is placed on Clauses 8 and 11 of the Guidelines to contend that the petitioner had completed the mandatory tenure of five years at the Kunnikode Branch and that, in exceptional cases of severe health problems, an employee's transfer should be confined to their place of ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -10- domicile, provided vacancies are available to accommodate such request. It is submitted that a vacancy is available at Kadakkal branch itself and another vacancy at nearby Chathannoor. It is contended that absolutely no prejudice will be caused to any person by the petitioner being accommodated at Kadakkal or Chathannoor. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents refuted the factual contentions and pointed out the limited scope for interference in matters of transfer. In support of the legal contentions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [(1989) 2 SCC 602]**_ and _**State of U.P and**_ _**others v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402**_ . 6. It is contended that the petitioner had no complaint against Ext.P1 order of transfer, which is evident from the fact that after the ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -11- order, petitioner had merely submitted Ext.P2 application for sabbatical and had filed an appeal against the order or even a representation against the proposal. The contention that Ext.P3 order was issued pursuant to Ext.P13 request made by the petitioner, is refuted. It is submitted that Ext.P3 order was mistakenly issued without noticing that the petitioner was already transferred to Manjeri by Ext.P1. On realising the mistake, measures were taken to correct the mistake. According to the learned Counsel, the prayer in the writ petition is more in the nature of a request of transfer to a place of petitioner's choice. The settled legal position is that the employee cannot insist for transfer to a particular place of his/her choice and it is for the employer to transfer an employee considering administrative exigency. 7. The petitioner's claim of there being ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -12- vacancies at Kadakkal branch and Chathanoor are denied. It is contended that even medical ground is no reason for this Court to interfere with an order of transfer, as held by the Apex Court in _**Union of India and another** v_ _**Deepak**_ ## _**Niranjan Nath Pandit [(2020) 3 SCC 404]**_ . 8. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, transfer being an exigency of service and prerogative of the employer, cannot stand in the way of requests from employees, based on health reasons being taken into consideration. It is pointed out that the decision in _**Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit** (supra)_ is not applicable as the facts of that case are entirely different from the instant case. Reference is also made to the Full Bench decision of this Court in _**Santhosh K and another**_ _**v. Chief Engineer (HRM), KSEB, Tvm [2013 (4) KHC 624]**_ to contend that, even though the realm of W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -13- judicial intervention in transfer matters is very limited, this Court can consider whether the order is vitiated by _mala fides_ , malice, substantial legal and factual perversity or arbitrariness. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents, transfer of an employee is an incident of service and no employee has the legal right for being posted at a particular place. When exigencies of service require the transfer of a particular employee, that cannot be objected to by relying on the guidelines, which has no statutory force and at best, can only have persuasive effect. As far as the facts on the case are concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred to Manjeri vide Ext.P1 order. The dispute is whether the petitioner was transferred from Kunnikode to Kadakkal, pursuant to her request, or due to ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -14- mistake in noticing that she already stood transferred by Ext.P1 order. It is not necessary for this Court to venture into that factual dispute, inasmuch as Ext.P1 order has neither been withdrawn nor cancelled. Moreover, even at the time when Ext.P2 application for sabbatical leave was placed, the petitioner had not challenged against Ext.P1. The petitioner has not alleged any _mala fide_ in her original transfer or the subsequent cancellation. Of course, medical reasons have been projected by the petitioner, which may require her to refrain from undertaking long journeys. That, by itself, is not a reason for this Court to interfere with the order of transfer. The petitioner's grievance can, to an extent be redressed by permitting her to make an application for extending her sabbatical leave, which is due to expire by tomorrow. I am confident that if such ## W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** an application is made, the respondents will consider it positively, taking into account her present medical condition. The petitioner can also be given the liberty of making a fresh application for transfer when the next general transfers are affected. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows; (i) As the sabbatical leave already granted to the petitioner is due to expire on 11.01.2022 that leave period shall be extended by four weeks, provided the petitioner submits application for extension of sabbatical leave within three weeks. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** thereon shall be passed within two weeks. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [416 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** extended. If the petitioner makes an application W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 **==> picture [23 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** for transfer during the general transfer for the next year, that shall be considered, uninfluenced by the earlier proceedings. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/10.01.2021 W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -17- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18208/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BULLETIN NO.4/2020 DATED 05.08.2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE DATED 01.01.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF BULLETIN NO.5/2021 DATED 29.07.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACTION DATED 03.08.2021 FROM THE HR WING ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2021 W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -18- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22642/2021** |PETITIONER|EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF| ||THE BULLETIN NO.4/2020 DATED| ||05.08.2020| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR| ||SABBATICAL LEAVE DATED 01.01.2021| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF BULLETIN| ||NO.5/2021 DATED 29.07.2021| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACTION| ||DATED 03.08.2021 FROM THE HR WING| ||ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE APPEAL| ||MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT DATED 09.08.2021| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED| ||07.09.2021| |Exhibit P7|TREU COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||23.09.2021 BEARING| ||NO.9/KGB/757/2021/HR| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN| ||WP(C)NO.1820/2021 FILED BY RESPONDENTS| ||1 TO 5| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING F| ||NO.7/37/2014/RRB, THE MINISTRY OF| ||FINANCE DATED 07.10.2014.| W.P.(C) Nos.18208 & 22642 of 2021 -19-