Disposed

Kranti Madhukar Patil v. Syndicate Bank, through Chairman Head Office at Udapi Karnataka and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2018WP/8007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged a transfer order by Syndicate Bank moving the petitioner from Maharashtra to Karnataka. The court held that no interference was called for, noting the post was transferable, and suggested the petitioner could seek re-transfer via representation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner directed to make representation for re-transfer if desired.

Kranti Madhukar Patil Vs Syndicate Bank… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(908) WP 8007-18.doc

¶2

Amk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8007 OF 2018

¶5

Kranti Madhukar Patil .. Petitioner Vs. Syndicate Bank & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pratap Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. P. N. Shah a/w. Mr. Jay Vora for the Respondent No.3.

¶7

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2018.

¶8

P. C.

¶9

The above Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.06.2018 Exhibit 'E' issued by Respondent No.1 by which order the Petitioner has been transferred from Talegaon-Dabhade Branch in Pune District, Maharashtra to Kakkinje Branch, District Udupi, Karnataka. The said challenge is on the ground that it is the policy of the Respondent No.1 to keep the husband and wife at the same place. It seems that the husband

¶10

of the Petitioner is working in the Police Department as Police SubInspector and posted in Mumbai.

¶11

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-Bank Mr. P. N. Shah points out that the Petitioner had completed her tenure of 3 years at the said Talegaon Dabhade Branch and was therefore due for transfer. The learned Counsel would submit that the Petitioner has achieved an expertise in providing finance to the horticulturists and therefore the

¶12

1/2

¶13

(908) WP 8007-18.doc

¶14

Petitioner has been transferred to Kakkinje Branch in Udupi District, Karnataka for the said purpose. The learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner has been, in fact, trained in Manglore District in so far as providing finance to the horticulturists is concerned. Apart from contending that it is the policy of Respondent No.1-Bank to keep the husband and wife at the same place as far as possible subject to the vacancy position at the same place as also the needs of the administration. We have not been pointed out any other service regulation or policy decision on the basis of which the Petitioner can contend that she cannot be transferred. In fact, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly conceded that the Petitioner is holding a transferable post.

¶15

In our view, therefore, no interference is called for with the said transfer order. However, it would be open for the Petitioner to make a representation to the Respondent No.1-Bank for re-transferring her to a Branch in Maharashtra in terms of the policy of the Respondent No.1-Bank. If any such representation is made by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.1Bank may consider it appropriately in terms of its policy. It is, therefore, not necessary to keep the above Petition pending.

¶16

With the directions as aforestated, the Petition is disposed of.

¶17

[K. K. SONAWANE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

¶18

Digitally signed Arjun by ArjunMachhindra Machhindra Kadam Kadam Date: 2018.09.14 14:19:34 +0530

¶19

2/2

Kranti Madhukar Patil v. Syndicate Bank, through Chairman Head Office at Udapi Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kranti Madhukar Patil v. Syndicate Bank, through Chairman Head Office at Udapi Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Joint Director (Treausuries) Vs Mrs. Suvarna Umesh Sant and Ors.

Kalpana Springwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Savita Ashok Pethe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Rajendra Thakur Vs Smt. Babita G. Giri, Vice Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committe and Ors.

Upendra K. Kudva Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Others

Meeta Vasudeo Nene Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.