Meluram Karmveer v. The Chief Managing Director, Punjab National Bank,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3768 of 2015

1. Meluram Karmveer S/o Late Manuwa Ram, Aged About 45 Years R/o A-2, Priyadarshani Nagar, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Chief Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Development Division, Head Quarter 7, Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

2. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, Jail Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)

3. Circle Head, Ring Road No.2, Gourav Path, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner.

:

Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate.

For Respondents.

:

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate on advance copy.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Order On Board 15/10/2015 1.

Challenged in the present writ petition is to the order dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Balrampur. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a branch which does not have sufficient business as per the requirement of scheme and scale of the petitioner. He submits that if the respondents were keen to shift the petitioner, they could have shifted him to a place where the officers of the rank of the petitioner can be shifted. He further submits that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfer as he has been transferred thrice in a year.

He also submits that the case of the petitioner requires fresh consideration by the higher authorities.

3.

Counsel for respondents submits that let the petitioner move representation to respondent No.3 and in turn, his representation would be decided in an objective manner.

4.

The present petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.3. In the eventuality of filing detailed representation by the petitioner within ten days from today, it is expected from respondent No.3 to decide the said representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. 5.

It is made clear that nothing has been observed by this Court on merit aspect of the case and it would be for the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6.

As already stated, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE Vijay