Amudha Ahalya .R v. State Bank Of India

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.06.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA W.P.(MD)No.12763 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.11361 & 11362 of 2024 R.Amudha Ahalya ... Petitioner vs.

1.State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (HR) HR Department, Local Head Office, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office - II, Thanjavur.

3.The Chief Manager, Retail Assets Credit Centre, (62491) VOC Nagar, Thanjavur.

4.The Manager (Human Resources) Regional Business Office, State Bank of India, Thanjavur.

... Respondents 1/5

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned communication passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings in Lr.No.RACC-TNJ/2024-2025/11/72 dated 07.06.2024 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 permit the petitioner to continue in Retail Assets Credit Centre, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur Branch in compliance with the Transfer Policy dated 23.09.2011 For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Surya Prakash M/s.B.Saravana Associates For Respondents :

Mr.M.Ponniah Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Heard Mr.R.Surya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Ponniah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned communication of the third respondent in Lr.No.RACCTNJ/2024-2025/11/72 dated 07.06.2024 and consequently direct the 2/5

respondents 1 to 3 to permit her to continue in Retail Assets Credit Centre, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur Branch in compliance with the Transfer Policy dated 23.09.2011.

3. The petitioner who is working as a Deputy Manager at Retail Assets Credit Centre, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur Branch was transferred to Ammapet Branch, which is 25 Kms away from Thanjavur City vide the impugned communication of the third respondent. Hence, the petition.

4. Mr.R.Surya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's daughter aged about 9 years is suffering Pavor Nocturnus / Seizure disorder and she is advised to be kept under parental supervision, especially the mother. It is further submitted that as per the Transfer Policy, dated 23.09.2011, the petitioner is entitled to be continued in the same branch for a minimum period of two years. However, vide the impugned communication, the petitioner is transferred to Ammapet Branch within a period of eleven months which is against the Transfer Policy.

3/5

5. To be noted, the petitioner has been transferred to an Office which is just 25 Kms away from the current Office. However, since she contends that she has a daughter suffering from certain mental ailment, I feel it is appropriate for her to give a fresh representation to the respondents stating all the grounds now raised before this Court and the respondents shall consider her representation and pass appropriate orders.

6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of and the petitioner is at liberty to give a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 14.06.2024 NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mbi 4/5

R.N.MANJULA, J.

mbi 14.06.2024 5/5