Allowed

Smt Chandni Arora v. Indian Overseas Bank

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2024WP/11869/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bank Assistant Manager challenged rejection of her sabbatical leave application under the Bank's scheme for women employees. The Court held refusal must be shown to be reasonable when eligibility is established, quashed the rejection communication, declared her entitled to two years' sabbatical leave from 01.05.2023 with financial benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 06.03.2024 quashed; petitioner declared entitled to two years' sabbatical leave from 01.05.2023; posting order after expiry and all financial benefits directed.

Smt Chandni Arora Vs Indian Overseas Bank — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11869 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT CHANDNI ARORA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O SRI SACHIN NARANG RESIDING AT NO 2E /702 ISRO QUARTERS DOS HOUSING COLONY BANGALORE - 560013.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD Date: 2024.08.30 10:19:43 +0530

¶10

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CMD CENTRAL OFFICE, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 763, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI - 600002.

¶13

GENERAL MANAGER HRMD CENTRAL OFFICE, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 763, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI - 600002.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶16

CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE 10/1 3RD FLOOR LAKSHMINARAYAN COMPLEX PALACE ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560052.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.KEERTHI KUMAR D NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2023 VIDE ANENXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO GRANT THE PETITIONER SABBATICAL LEAVE FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AS PRAYED FOR BY HER. B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO RELEASE HER SALARY, LOYALTY BONUS AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FOR THE PERIOD AS AND WHEN THE SAME ACCRUED.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶25

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Manager with the first respondent [the Bank], and she is aggrieved by the respondents’ Communications dated 15.12.2023 and 06.03.2024. The respondents by the first Communication dated 15.12.2023 have informed the petitioner that her request for posting to a branch in Lucknow or its neighboring region cannot

¶26

be considered for want of vacancy, and the respondent by the next Communication dated 06.03.2024 has informed the petitioner that the Appellate Authority has declined her request for sanction of Sabbatical Leave .

¶27

The petitioner has been working with the

¶28

Bank in Bangalore for about 7½ years and she is served with Transfer Order dated 08.07.2022 posting her to Vijayawada. The petitioner has called this Order dated 08.07.2022 in question in W.P.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶31

No.25898/2022. This Court, which has initially granted interim order staying the operation of the Transfer Order dated 08.07.2022, has disposed of the petition in W.P.No.25898/2022 on 20.11.2023 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation requesting for her posting to a place of her choice and directing the Bank to consider the same sympathetically within a period of three [3] weeks. In compliance, the petitioner has filed representation which has resulted in the first Communication dated 15.12.2023. The petitioner has simultaneously applied for Sabbatical Leave relying upon the Bank's Scheme for grant of such Leave to its employees which has resulted in the second Communication dated 06.03.2024.

¶32

Ms. Jyoti Bhat R, the learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioner, submits that the Bank cannot dispute that it has notified a Scheme for extending Sabbatical Leave [hereafter referred to as ‘ the Scheme’ ] to its

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶35

women employees for a period of two years, and that in terms of this Scheme, the petitioner is entitled for Sabbatical Leave because she has completed a minimum period of five years of service without giving rooms for disciplinary action, or proceedings either before the CBI Court or any other authority.

¶36

Ms. Jyoti Bhat R, taking exception with

¶37

the Communication dated 06.03.2024 on the ground that no reason is assigned to justify refusal of sabbatical leave, submits that the purpose of the Scheme is to enable a woman employee to avail leave for a period of two years, amongst others, to take care of family members [her children] or to pursue higher studies or to visit her spouse or for medical Grounds.

¶38

The learned Counsel submits that petitioner has requested for sabbatical leave only because her husband is working with ISRO, Bangalore and her youngest child is born on 01.02.2023, and if she is compelled to stay in Vijayawada with her young child

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶41

without the support of her husband, there would be disruption of her family.

¶42

Sri Keerthi Kumar D Naik, the learned

¶43

counsel for first to third respondents, as against these submissions, canvasses that the petitioner is not bona fide in seeking sabbatical leave, and the Bank, which has reserved its right to reject any application for Sabbatical Leave without assigning reasons, has rightly rejected it. The learned counsel also argues that if lack of bona fides is one of the reasons, the other reason is that the Bank does not have sufficient officers for the rank of Assistant Managers.

¶44

Sri Keerthi Kumar D Naik, on the ground on the lack of bona fides in the petitioner, submits thus. The petitioner did not report at Vijayawada at all availing maternity leave as she was in the family way and taking advantage of the interim orders by this Court in W.P. No.25898/2022, and that when

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶46

liberty is granted by this Court to file a representation for posting to a place of her choice, the application for sabbatical leave is filed while simultaneously seeking posting to a branch in Lucknow.

¶47

The petitioner's grievance with the

¶48

rejection of her application for sabbatical leave is considered in the light of the rival submissions as above and the indisputable fact that the petitioner's family, which comprises of her elder child aged about five years and a newborn, reside in Bangalore as her husband is working with ISRO and her maternal home is in Lucknow. The further material circumstances such as the following are also considered:

¶49

[i] The petitioner is issued with the transfer

¶50

order on 08.07.2022 which is stayed by this Court in WP No. 25898/2022 on 05.04.2023.

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶52

[ii] The petitioner was in the family way, and the petitioner’s second child is born on 01.02.2023. The petitioner could have availed/ has availed maternity leave until 30.04.2023.

¶53

[iii] The Petitioner has had the benefit of the interim order against her transfer until the disposal of the writ petition on 20.11.2023, and this writ petition is disposed with liberty to file a representation requesting for posting to a place of her choice.

¶54

[iv] This Court has observed that the benefit of the interim order shall inure to the petitioner’s advantage until her

¶55

representation is considered.

¶56

The Bank does not dispute that the

¶57

Scheme is in vogue and that in accordance with such

¶58

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶59

Scheme a woman employee can avail sabbatical leave for any of the reasons as stipulated therein. The Bank also does not dispute that such leave can be even availed for the purposes of ‘ taking care of the family members or children’ . The impugned Communication dated 06.03.2024 does not indicate the reason, and the Bank may not also assign reason. However, because the decision to refuse such leave is justiciable, the Bank must be shown to be reasonable when the employee concerned shows eligibility for leave.

¶60

This Court may observe that it may not be too presumptuous if it is premised that women employees, invariably, balance work and family, and that it can be reasonably argued that they should not be compelled to make a choice to prioritize employment over family or vice versa. The Scheme, given the purposes for which it is envisaged, definitely enables a woman employee to balance her

¶61

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶62

work and family, and if the applications for such leave are rejected perfunctorily, or for seemingly tenuous reasons, it could be opined that the concerned woman, notwithstanding the Scheme and the reasons for such Scheme, is not given a choice to balance and she is constrained to make what could be a difficult choice.

¶63

This Court is therefore of the considered

¶64

view that when the decision to refuse sabbatical leave is called in question, the reasons for rejection of the request must be shown to be overwhelming. Otherwise, the Scheme will be a mere window dressing. in the present case, one of the reasons offered before this Court to justify the decision to refuse the petitioner’s request for sabbatical leave is that the Bank does not have requisite officers in the petitioner’s cadre, and this reason, unsubstantiated as it is, is seemingly tenuous.

¶65

11 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶67

If the petitioner is not given the advantage

¶68

of continuing in Bangalore region despite her indubitable circumstances as aforesaid, this Court must opine that the petitioner's request for sabbatical leave must be considered in the backdrop of the undisputed fact that the petitioner's family, which comprises of her elder child aged about five years and a newborn, reside in Bangalore as her husband is working with ISRO. Further, the petitioner is issued with the transfer order dated 08.07.2022 when she was in the family way with her second child, who is born on 01.02.2023. These circumstances belie lack of bona fides and the effort to seek posting at Lucknow and sabbatical leave demonstrate a keenness to do the best in the circumstances and avail the facilities envisaged and permissible.

¶69

This Court must opine that the

¶70

petitioner's request for sabbatical leave and her request for a posting to a branch in Lucknow or in

¶71

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶72

the region abutting the city must be considered accordingly. It could possibly be that when the petitioner called in question her transfer to Vijayawada on 08.07.2022, she was not aware of the entitlement to sabbatical leave, or even if aware, for reasons [the undeniable vicissitude of life] she may have deferred applying for such leave. In either circumstances the petitioner's entitlement to sabbatical leave cannot be put in jeopardy, especially with the petitioner being granted maternity leave when she was in the family way with her second child who is born on 01.02.2023.

¶73

In the circumstances, this Court is of the

¶74

considered view that that the petitioner's endeavor to seek sabbatical leave cannot be described as lacking in bona fides and that she has established her entitlement to sabbatical leave. Therefore, this Court must interfere without driving her to another phase of uncertainty by enabling another representation for

¶75

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶76

consideration, and because the petitioner has availed/ can avail Maternity Leave until 30.04.2023, the petitioner must be extended sabbatical leave for a period of two years commencing from 01.05.2023 ending as of 30.04.2025.

¶77

At this stage, Ms. Jyoti Bhat submits that the Bank’s declared policy is to enable a couple to work together, and if the petitioner's husband can seek posting outside Bangalore region, it should be open to her to file a representation to seek accommodation within such region. This Court must opine in this regard that if extant policy is as is now canvassed, the options in this regard to the petitioner cannot be foreclosed and the petitioner must be reserved with liberty. In the light of the afore the following

¶78

14 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶80

ORDER

¶81

[A] The petitioner petition is allowed, and the impugned communication dated 06.03.2024 [ Annexure-A ] is quashed.

¶82

[B] It is declared that the petitioner will be

¶83

entitled for Sabbatical Leave reckoned from 01.05.2023, or such other date as the expiry of the maternity leave, for a period of two years.

¶84

[C] The Bank shall issue posting orders to the petitioner immediately after the expiry of the Sabbatical period and the petitioner shall report to duty consequent to such order.

¶85

[D] It is needless to observe that if the petitioner's husband is transferred out of Bangalore zone, it should be open to her to make a request for a posting within such region, but it must be

¶86

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:28609 WP No. 11869 of 2024

¶87

after reporting to her place of posting in terms of this order.

¶88

[E] The petitioner shall be paid all financial benefits that she is entitled to as an employee who has availed maternity and sabbatical leave.

¶89

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶90

Smt Chandni Arora v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandni Arora v. Indian Overseas Bank

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

K R Ravinandan Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Smt. R.Shashirekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Govinda Matti Vs Mangalore University

Sri. K. Siddegowda Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri N Pradeepakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Panday Raj. S. Y. Vs the State of Karnataka