Sushil Kumar Naik v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 820 of 2018 Sushil Kumar Naik S/o S/o Shri Raghunandan Lal Naik, Aged About 56 Years Posted As Assistant Officer Grade, Il At C. G. Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch- Chhuri, Tehsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through, Its Chairman, Head Office, Mahadeo Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Through Its General Manager, Head Office, Mahadeo Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Regional Manager, Chhattisgarh, Rajya Gramin Bank, Kachheri Chowk, Janjgir, District- Janjgir, Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Mr. K. N. Nande, Advocate.

For Respondent/s :

Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 24/01/2018 1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by transfer order dated 18-08-2017 for consideration of his transfer on his own request. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the transfer policy of the respondents, as per clause 4 (Annexure "A"), Norms for Transfer of Officers Group (A), the petitioner is entitled to be considered for one request transfer during entire career. It is submitted that for the first time in his 34 years, the petitioner has applied for request of transfer on 03-07-2016, followed by subsequent representations also but till date, there is no consideration.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondent would fairly submit that the petitioner's representation would be considered and decision would be taken on the same in accordance with the transfer policy. 4.

Taking into consideration the said submission and the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition, I am not inclined to keep this matter pending but to dispose off with a direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks.

5.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit