- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 13 September 2023
- Bench
- Sanjeev Narula
- Case no.
- LPA 632/2023
Judgment
SANJEEV NARULA, J. SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 N.Khanna
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 13.09.2023 % LPA 632/2023 and C.M. Nos. 47303/2023, 47304/2023, 47305/2023 & 47306/2023 SMT SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ANR. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (the "LPA") is filed challenging order dated 25.04.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 4163/2023 ("Impugned Order"), titled Central Bank of India v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi & Anr. 2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Appellant No.2 i.e., Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma, is an employee working with the Central Bank of India/Respondent ("Bank") and he started his service career by joining the bank in the clerical grade at the Bank's Branch at Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi on 16.01.1995. He was, thereafter, transferred on 22.10.2001 by the Respondent Bank within the Delhi Zone. On 22.05.2007, he was again transferred within the Delhi Zone. On 06.10.2008, the Appellant No. 2 was promoted as Assistant Manager and upon promotion he was transferred to Jaipur, Rajasthan. On 07.12.2012, the Appellant No.2 was again transferred back to Delhi and since then, the Appellant No.2 has uninterruptedly been performing his services at Delhi. Meaning thereby, that the Appellant No. 2, except for a span of 4 years where he was transferred to Jaipur, has remained in Delhi since 1995. 3. The transfers of employees of the Bank is governed by the Bank's Transfer Policy and keeping in view the same, as the Appellant No.2 was due for rotational transfer, he was transferred to Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh on 21.04.2022. 4. The Appellant No. 1, who is the mother of Appellant No. 2 submitted an application before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (the "Chief Commissioner") being aggrieved by the transfer of the Appellant No. 2 on the ground that she is suffering from 47% locomotive disability, and a request was made for the cancellation of his transfer. The said application was preferred under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("RPWD Act"). The Appellant No. 1 also placed reliance upon an Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training ("DOPT") and pleaded before the Chief Commissioner that the Appellant No.2 cannot be transferred as Appellant No. 1 has 47% locomotive disability and is dependent on Appellant No. 2. 5. In those circumstances, the Chief Commissioner has passed an order recommending the employer to cancel the transfer of Appellant No. 2 and to report compliance. The order of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities while recommending cancellation of transfer has also held that, in case, the recommendation is not implemented, the matter shall be reported to the Parliament. The Bank in those circumstances came up before this Court being aggrieved by the recommendations/ order passed by the Chief Commissioner and the learned Single Judge, while passing the Impugned Order, in paragraphs 13 to 17 has held as under: "13. In the opinion of the Court if an employee is allowed to scuttle his transfer by relying upon the physical condition of his mother, that too in a complaint filed by the mother, it would be impossible for organisations to run their activities and manage personnel. The settled legal position is that Courts are reluctant to interfere in transfers, especially when the nature of the job is transferable in nature. A Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh Dagar v. Union of India 2022:DHC:847-DB has held as under: "23. At the outset, it must be emphasised that an employee in a transferable job has no vested right to remain posted at one place. The Courts should not readily interfere with the transfer order which is made in the public interest and for administrative reasons, unless the transfer order is made in violat
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.