Ravi M Vs Bank of Baroda

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 25896 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAVI M., S/O MARIKAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NUMBER B-13, RANKA AQUA GREEN APARTMENT, HARSH LAYOUT, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060. (PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MATHRUSHREE NITAYA, A.M. PALYA, BEEMASANDRA, BELLAVI ROAD, TUMKUR, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA-572107 …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SUGHOSH SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA 1. BANK OF BARODA Location: REPRESENTED BY HIGH THE GENERAL MANAGER-HR, COURT OF KARNATAKA BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE, C-26, G-BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051.

¶11

THE ZONAL HEAD (GENERAL MANAGER), BANK OF BARODA, BENGALURU NORTH ZONE, VIJAYA TOWERS, SECOND FLOOR, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

2 -

¶13

NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶14

THE REGIONAL HEAD BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, VIJAYA TOWERS, FOURTH FLOOR, TRINITY CIRCLE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226, 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FAVOURABLY DISPOSE OF THE PETITIONER'S EXEMPTION REQUEST FROM INTER-ZONAL TRANSFER IN HRMS/HRCONNECT AND TO RESTORE HIS POSTING IN BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to favourably dispose off his representation seeking exemption from Inter-Zonal Transfer in HRMS/HR-Connect and to restore his posting at Bengaluru. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to sanction the intervening period during which he was compelled to be on “loss of pay” as leave and to immediately release the pending salary. He has also sought for a direction to the

¶21

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶22

respondents to restore his official email ID and HRMS/HRConnect and grant him access.

¶23

The petitioner joined the services of the erstwhile Vijaya Bank on 15.09.2008 as a Probationary Assistant Manager, Marketing (Specialist Officer) and after a slew of promotions, he was posted as a Senior Manager at the H.B.R. Layout branch, Bengaluru.

¶24

The petitioner contends that he sought exemption from Inter-Zonal Transfer (‘IZT’ for short) under the policy of transfer of the respondent No.1 - Bank dated 01.02.2024 in the light of the fact that his wife was suffering from a congenital heart disease and was scheduled to undergo surgery. The petitioner contends that he was legitimately expecting the respondent No.2 to favourably consider his representation. However, he was relieved from his duties at HBR Layout branch of the respondent No.1-Bank at Bengaluru on 12.07.2024 and was directed to report to Mumbai Zone branch on 15.07.2024. He contends that his request for exemption from IZT was not considered. He also contends that the respondents had denied access to his email ID on the bank's system to cut him off from

¶25

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶26

making any communication with the authorities. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the clause 5.4.2 of the Guidelines on Transfer of Officers comprised in the Transfer Policy for Officers’ framed by the respondent No.1-Bank which inter alia provides that Officers whose spouses are critically ill and suffering from life threatening ailments are exempted from transfer. He also contends that the Government of India has issued a directive to all Public Sector Banks revising the transfer guidelines, in terms of which, the officers of scale 3 had to be retained in the same linguistic region. He, therefore, contends that the respondents were bound to consider the request of the petitioner for exemption from IZT. He contends that the condition of the wife of the petitioner continues to be critical and that she has still not undergone a surgery and therefore, the presence of the petitioner at Bengaluru is necessary. Thus, he contends that the email communication issued by the Assistant General Manager (HRM) of the respondent No.1 – Bank transferring the petitioner to Mumbai Zone be set at naught and a direction be issued to the respondents to exempt the petitioner from IZT.

¶28

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶29

The petition is opposed by the respondents, who have filed an elaborate statement of objections inter alia contending that transfer from one place to another would entail some inconvenience to the employee and that alone cannot be a ground to challenge the transfer or to interfere with an order of transfer. It is contended that a transfer can be interfered only when it is found to be mala fide or contrary to the statutory provisions. It is claimed that there are no grounds made by the petitioner for interference and transfer of the petitioner is not in violation of the Transfer Policy for Officers dated 01.02.2024. They have contended that transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner having accepted a transferable job cannot cite reasons not to report at the transferred place. It is also contended that after this Court granted an interim order of stay of the transfer of the petitioner, he did not report at his earlier place and he remained unauthorizedly absent. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner had deliberately absented from work which itself was a misconduct. They also contend that the petitioner is a Specialist Officer whose services are required at Mumbai branch of the respondent No.1 - Bank. It is contended that there are

¶30

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶31

world-class hospitals in Mumbai where the petitioner's wife can be treated and therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioner for exemption from IZT do not merit consideration.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the

¶33

above contentions and in support of his contentions, has relied upon the following judgments:

¶34

i. Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani [(1989) 2 SCC 602];

¶35

ii. Union of India and others v. S.L.Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357]; and

¶36

iii. Mridul Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. [I.L.R. [2015] M.P. 2556]

¶37

When this petition was taken up for final disposal,

¶38

the Court queried the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner's wife has undergone a surgery, he stated that she is yet to undergo the surgery as her haemoglobin level is below the normal range. When this Court further queried whether petitioner would be willing to report at the transferred location if some reasonable time is granted, as

¶39

he has been working in the home zone from the date of his appointment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶40

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶41

if some reasonable time is given, the petitioner would report at the transferred location.

¶42

The petitioner has placed on record documents to establish that his wife is suffering from a congenital heart disease and has two young children. The Transfer Policy for Officers of the respondent No.1-Bank does provide to meet a situation when a spouse of an employee is suffering from a serious illness. Therefore, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for either exempting the petitioner from Inter-Zonal Transfer or by granting some time for the petitioner to equip himself for the transfer. Since it is now stated by the petitioner that he would be ready to report at the transferred location if reasonable time is granted, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:

¶43

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶44

(ii) The transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru Zone to Mumbai Zone is kept on hold for a period of five months from today. On the expiry of the fifth month i.e. on 25.08.2025 , the petitioner shall report at the office of the respondent No.1 - Bank in Mumbai Zone

¶45

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13028 WP No. 25896 of 2024

¶46

without compelling the respondents to take further action in this regard.

¶47

(iii) The respondents shall restore the email ID of the petitioner and grant all access to the petitioner.

¶48

(iv) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to report at Mumbai Zone of the respondent No.1 - Bank on 25.08.2025, the respondents are at liberty to take suitable action against him in accordance with law.

¶49

(v) After the petitioner reports to duty at Mumbai Zone of the respondent No.1-Bank, the respondents shall consider the representations given by the petitioner for exemption from Inter-Zonal Transfer in view of the guidelines issued by the Government of India to all Public Sector Banks.

¶50

(vi) Since the petitioner has not reported to duty at Bengaluru Zone after obtaining an interim order of stay of his transfer, his absence from duty shall be treated as leave if he has any leave to his credit or half pay leave or else shall be treated as loss of pay. Any pending salary after giving effect to the above shall be paid to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that the respondents shall pay the salary to the

¶51