Partly allowed

Badarish S. v. Kerala Gramin Bank

Kerala HC16 Nov 2021WP(C)/16784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, office assistants in Kerala Gramin Bank, challenged failure to consider their transfer requests. The court disposed of the petition directing the competent authority to re-evaluate representations within four weeks to assess vacancy availability for potential accommodation without displacing incumbents.

What did the court decide?

Directed competent authority to reconsider representations and ascertain vacancies at chosen branches within four weeks, to accommodate petitioners without disturbing incumbents.

Badarish S. Vs Kerala Gramin Bank — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 BADARISH S. AGED 41 YEARS (NO.5164), OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, VENGARA BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SURESH KUMAR G. (NO.5057), OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, ELANKUR BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 RAJESH KUMAR RAVINDRAN (NO.5836), OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, KANIYAMBETTA BRANCH, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

4 SAJITH R. (NO.5043), OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, TRIPPANACHI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

5 ANISH KUMAR C. T. (NO.5894), OFFICE ASSISTANT, KERALA GRAMIN BANK, THIRUVALI BRANCH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. BRIJESH MOHAN RESMI G. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 KERALA GRAMIN BANK HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

2 THE CHAIRMAN KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021 2

¶16

3 THE CHIEF MANAGER (HR WING) KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 4 THE GENERAL MANAGER KERALA GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners, who are working as office assistants in various branches of the first respondent bank had approached this court raising their grievance that their requests for transfer to the places of their choice was not considered by the bank. Accordingly, by Ext.P6 judgment of this court, it was directed that their requests for transfer are liable to be considered during the next general transfer, taking note of the transfer policy, the guidelines and also the administrative exigencies of the employer. Accordingly, general transfer was effected. The petitioners have thereafter approached this court with the present writ petition, raising a grievance that their representations were not considered. They sought for appropriate reliefs.

¶22

Respondents have filed counter affidavit, wherein it

¶23

was contended that the request was considered in the light of Ext.P1 guidelines and having regard to the

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶26

parameters laid down by this court in Ext.P6. However, their requests could not be considered and general transfer order was issued. It was also contended that though individual orders are not passed, the grievances raised by them were duly considered. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the points projected by the respondents was that excess staff were deployed in branches in southern Kerala, whereas the bank was facing shortage in branches at the northern part of Kerala, due to retirement/ resignation of staff. To counter this argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Ext.P13, a list of staffs, who are stated to be in excess at places. Specific instances were pointed out to show that each of the branch to which each petitioner was transferred had excess staff.

¶27

In the nature of the limited jurisdiction which this court is expected to exercise, when no specific violation of rule is projected nor any malafides specifically alleged or attributed, the only question that arises is whether having regard to the grievances projected by them which apparently

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶30

appears to be genuine, some accommodation can be given within Ext.P1 guidelines applicable to the parties. In the light of the above, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority to consider the representations of the petitioners once again and to ascertain whether in places chosen by the petitioners or nearby branches, vacancies are available and whether the petitioners, or few among them can be accommodated subject to the availability of the vacancies and without disturbing the present incumbents. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

R.AV

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16784/2021

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY FOR WORKMEN EMPLOYEES (OFFICE ASSISTANTS) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.08.2020 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.16674/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2020 IN RP NO.671/20 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.16674/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.9/KGB/856/2020/IR DATED 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.9/KGB/861/2020/IR DATED 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.27960/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER VIDE NO.BULLETIN : 5/2021 DATED 29.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

¶41

WP(C) NO. 16784 OF 2021

¶42

Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE	REPRESENTATION DATED
	26.04.2021 SUBMIT PETITIONER BEFORE	TED BY THE 2ND THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE THE 1ST RESPONDEN	REPRESENTATION DATED NIL 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE T.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 5TH PETITI	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ONER BEFORE THE
	RESPONDENTS THROU	GH ONLINE.

Badarish S. v. Kerala Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badarish S. v. Kerala Gramin Bank

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

G.Sreekumar, Vs State of Kerala

K.S. Majeed Vs the Court of Enquiry

Sabu Cherian Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Pillai D. Vs State of Kerala

Sobha.B.S., Vs Varkala Municipality

Reghu a. N. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board