Disposed

Shankar Dayal Singh, Assistant General Manager, Nabard v. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2012WP/1126/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing repatriation and retention of service quarters. Court declined interference on transfer, noting no vested right and pending internal review. Granted time to vacate accommodation subject to undertaking and directed grievance committee to decide rent issue within three months.

What did the court decide?

Undertaking accepted to vacate flat by 30 April 2012; Committee directed to decide rent issue within three months.

Shankar Dayal Singh, Assistant General Manager, Nabard… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

WPL-82.sxw

ASN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 82 OF 2012 Shankar D.Singh. ...Petitioner. Vs. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development and ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr .S.V.Marne for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate with Mr. S.P.Bhartiu for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & SHRI. M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.

¶8

25 JANUARY 2012

¶9

PC:

¶10

The petitioner who is working as an Assistant General Manager with the 1^st respondent was transferred from Mumbai to Thiruvanantapuram on 18 March 2009. A representation which was filed by the petitioner was rejected on 27 April 2009. The petitioner is presently working and is posted at Thiruvanantapuram. In this proceeding the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing that he should be repatriated back to Mumbai on the ground that he had not completed his tenure of 5-years in Mumbai. The petitioner also seeks an order for retention of the service accommodation in Mumbai.

WPL-82.sxw

ASN

2 The record before the Court indicates that the petitioner had filed a representation on 21 November 2011 to the Grievance Redressal Committee seeking relief both in respect of the request for repatriation to Mumbai and in respect of the penal market rent imposed on the occupation of the flat in Mumbai. The representation in regard to the retention of the flat was rejected by the Grievance Redressal Committee on 13 December 2011 as not maintainable while the issue of repatriation is still to be decided in due course. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in regard to the issue pertaining to the residential flat. In the meantime, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶15

3 We are not inclined to interfere at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution as regards the issue of repatriation. According to the petitioner, he was transferred to Thiruvanantapuram in view of the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. The petitioner states that he has been exonerated in the enquiry and therefore, he may be repatriated back. As a matter of first principle, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be justified in issuing directions in regard to the transfer of an employee to a particular place. An employee has no vested right to seek a mandamus from this Court for seeking transfer from one place to another. In any event, this matter is pending consideration of the Grievance Redressal Committee and the Court has been assured by the first respondent that the Committee shall arrive at a

WPL-82.sxw

ASN

decision according to law expeditiously.

¶20

4 In so far as the issue of the retention of service quarters is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tenders an undertaking that the petitioner would vacate the residential flat at Mumbai by 30 April 2012. The petitioner has stated that he requires the flat until the aforesaid date since his child is undergoing education in school at Mumbai. Learned counsel for 1^st respondent has no objection to the granting of time to vacate till 30 April 2012 subject to the filing of an undertaking. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent states that the petitioner was allowed to retain the residential accommodation for a period of two years until 9 May 2011 despite transfer and the petitioner would be charged normal rent until September 2011 after which the 1^st respondent proposes to charge penal rent until the petitioner vacates the service accommodation. This aspect will be looked into by the Committee and an appropriate decision will be taken. The Committee shall arrive at its decision within a period of three months from today.

¶21

5 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

( DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J )

¶23

( SHRI. M.S. SANKLECHA, J. )

Shankar Dayal Singh, Assistant General Manager, Nabard v. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Dayal Singh, Assistant General Manager, Nabard v. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Nabard) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monitor India Private Limited Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Leo Suzind Fisheries Ltd., and Ors. Vs State Bank of India

Guna Ram Das Vs the Commissioner Kendria Vidyalaya and Ors.