Court allowed review petition in part, holding that Bank must consider employee representations filed under its internal transfer policy Clause 21, directing the Authority to decide within one month.
Directing the Chairman/Authorized Authority of the Bank to consider submitted representations within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 29TH ASWINA, 1942
RP.No.671 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16674/2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16674/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.8.2020
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
BY ADVS. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SHRI.BALAMURALI KRISHNA M.
RESPONDENT/S:
KERALA GRAMIN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KGB TOWERS, AK ROAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA 676 505.
SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR .
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP.No.671 OF 2020
IN WP(C). 16674/2020
C.S.DIAS, J.
====================== Review Petition No.671 of 2020
in
WP(C) No.16674 of 2020
======================
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2020.
ORDER
This review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 26.8.2020 passed in WP(C) No.16674/2020.
3
RP.No.671 OF 2020
IN WP(C). 16674/2020
precedents on the point.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of India vs. P. Venkatesh [(2019) 15 SCC 613] and refused to entertain the request of the petitioners to consider Exts P6 to P12 representations submitted by them to the Chairman of the Bank. The said representations were produced with I.A No.1 of 2020, to accept the documents on record.
4
RP.No.671 OF 2020
IN WP(C). 16674/2020
21.Grievances
“In case any employee has grievances in transfers, he/she can represent his/her case in writing to the Chairman within a period of 15 days from date of issuance of transfer order, who will take appropriate redressal in individual case as deemed fit and the decision of the Chairman/the authority authorized will be final”.
5
RP.No.671 OF 2020
IN WP(C). 16674/2020
guideline/policy of Bank and the Bank is bound to follow its own policy. Therefore, Exts P6 to P12 are not mere representations, but appeals submitted to the competent authority of the Bank. However, this Court had foreclosed the legal right of the petitioners relying on the ratio in P.Venkatesh (supra).
6
RP.No.671 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 16674/2020
reviewing the judgment in WP(C) 16674/2020, to the limited extent by directing the Chairman/Authorized Authority of the Bank to consider Exts P6 to P12 submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with the policy of the Bank.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
Sks/21.10.2020
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Bank is bound to consider employee representations filed invoking Clause 21 of the transfer policy despite the writ petition not including a specific prayer for the same.
Whether the earlier dismissal of the writ petition was erroneous by holding that such representations were not maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of India vs. P. VenkateshReferred¶11
(2019) 15 SCC 613 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar Ravindran and others
Kerala Gramin Bank
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
