Ullas H Vs the Under Secretary

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶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.8562 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ULLAS H (EMP. ID. NO.673396) S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, UNION BANK OF INDIA BENGALURU SOUTH - 560002

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B.HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE UNDER SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 3^RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEPA BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA, (HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) CENTRAL OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN, NO.239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG MUMBAI - 400021

¶14

THE DEPUTY ZONAL HEAD UNION BANK OF INDIA (HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) ZONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU JEEVAN SAMPIGE, 2^ND MAIN, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶16

BENGALURU - 560003.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SYED KASIF ALI AND SRI. PRADEEP SAWKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND 3;

¶19

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOS.2 AND 3 PERMITTING THE PETITIONER SHALL CONTINUE AS MANAGER ASSET RECOVERY BRANCH, N.R.ROAD, UNION BANK OF INDIA, AS PER ANNEXURE-G, DATED 26-11-2024 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.EF4/1/2/2024-IR.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to permit him to continue as a Manager, Asset Recovery branch, Union Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bengaluru as per the directive issued by the Government of India to review the transfer policy in public sector banks dated 26.11.2002.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶26

The petitioner contends that he had joined the services of the corporation bank on 11.11.2011 and after its merger with Union Bank, he was posted as a manager, asset recovery branch, Union Bank of India, N.R.Road, Bengaluru. He contends that as per the transfer policy of the respondent No.2, he was transferred prematurely vide order dated 09.05.2024 to Vijayawada. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.13227/2024 c/w 15813/2024. The said writ petitions were disposed off in terms of an order dated 25.10.2024 recording the statement made by the petitioner that if reasonable time is granted, he would not press the legal contentions. The petitioner was therefore directed to report to duty by 01.04.2025 as per the transfer order. He claimed that the Government of India has issued a directive to all public sector banks to review the transfer guidelines in terms of which, Scale - III officers should be accommodated in the same linguistic region as far as possible. He therefore has sought for a direction to the respondents to continue his service in Karnataka in view of the directive issued by the Government of India.

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that in view of the new transfer guidelines issued by the Government of India, the petitioner who is a Scale - III Officer and who belongs to Karnataka State should be retained in Karnataka. He also submits that the petitioner is willing to go to any place in Karnataka including Kalaburagi and therefore, suitable directions be issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to continue the services of the petitioner in Karnataka.

¶30

The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.Nos.13227/2024 c/w 15813/2024 was disposed off in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if reasonable time is granted, the petitioner would not press the legal contentions. Therefore, this Court had directed the petitioner to report to the duty by 01.04.2025. He contends that instead of reporting to duty, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He contends that the guidelines issued by the Government of India which are referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not yet been given effect to by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

¶31

5 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶33

therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit under the said directive.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶36

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court had permitted the petitioner to report to duty at Vijayawada by 01.04.2025. Even before the petitioner could report to duty, he has filed this writ petition trying to take advantage of the directive issued by the Government of India to all public sector banks to review the transfer policy, in terms of which, banks were directed to accommodate the officers up to Scale - III in the respective linguistic region as far as possible. In view of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.13227/2024 c/w 15813/2024, the petitioner is bound to report to duty at Vijayawada and thereafter make an application or representation before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for reconsideration of his transfer, in view of the directive issued by the Government of India to all public sector banks.

¶37

6 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:13029 WP No. 8562 of 2025

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be disposed off on the following terms:

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall report to duty at Vijayawada as per the transfer order dated 07.06.2024 by 01.04.2025. He shall file appropriate representation before the concerned officer seeking for reconsideration of his transfer in view of the directive issued by the Government of India to review the transfer policy in public sector banks.

¶41

(ii) If a representation is submitted by the petitioner within 10 days from today, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall consider the same within 15 days thereafter and pass appropriate orders.

¶42

(iii) It is made clear that if the petitioner does not report to duty by 01.04.2025, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall

¶43

be at liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶45

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Ullas H v. the Under Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ullas H v. the Under Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagya N Vs District Commissioner

Shri. Mahadeva Vs the Managing Director

Sri.M. Fayaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Kiran Kumar M P Vs the Director General Asi

Ravi M Vs Bank of Baroda