# Kavita Giri v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 242
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2511 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kavita-giri-v-union-of-india-ors-51763
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Bank of Baroda Transfer
Policy - Clause 8.9 - Transfer of Lady
Officers - Petitioner challenged transfer order
dated
04.11.2023
and
rejection
of
representation dated 09.06.2023 as violative of
Transfer Policy and court orders - Held, transfer
from Kanpur Dehat Region to Kanpur Metro
Region within the same zone not covered under
Clause 8.9.4 and 8.9.5, which apply only to
inter-zonal
transfers
-
Three-year
tenure
protection for lady officers applies only to interzonal transfers on request - Impugned order
not violative of Transfer Policy or prior court
orders in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023 and
Writ A No. 7948 of 2023 - Transfer policy to be
read as a whole, and transfer within zone does
not attract special provisions for lady officers -
Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor relied upon.
(Para 16-19, 23-25)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appropriate case but ordinarily a writ
petition should not be entertained when an
efficacious alternative remedy is provided
under law.

23. From the above said principles,
laid down by the Apex Court, the present
matter is not an appropriate case,
wherein, this Court could find objectively
that the nature of the controversy requires
the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

24. Sheet anchor of the argument of
counsel
for
the
petitioner
is
the
judgement and order dated 27.01.2020, is
with respect to peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case concerned,
which is apparent from the starting words
of paragraph 9 of the judgement itself,
and further the counsel for the petitioner
has also failed to substantiate that those
facts are identical to the facts of present
matter and therefore, the benefit of the
judgement and order dated 27th January
2020 is not available to the petitioner.

25. Considering the abovesaid facts
and circumstances, this Court is of
considered opinion that under the facts
and circumstances of the present matter,
this is a fit case, where the petitioner
should be relegated to exhaust the
alternative remedy under Section 68 of the
Act, 1973.

26. Consequently, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed on the ground of
maintainability.

27. However, it is open for the
petitioner to approach the appropriate
forum, in accordance with law.

28. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 242
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 2511 of 2024

Kavita Giri ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Asit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anand Kumar Singh, Krishna Lal
Yadav, Lalit Shukla

A. Service Law - Bank of Baroda Transfer
Policy - Clause 8.9 - Transfer of Lady
Officers - Petitioner challenged transfer order
dated
04.11.2023
and
rejection
of
representation dated 09.06.2023 as violative of
Transfer Policy and court orders - Held, transfer
from Kanpur Dehat Region to Kanpur Metro
Region within the same zone not covered under
Clause 8.9.4 and 8.9.5, which apply only to
inter-zonal
transfers
-
Three-year
tenure
protection for lady officers applies only to interzonal transfers on request - Impugned order
not violative of Transfer Policy or prior court
orders in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023 and
Writ A No. 7948 of 2023 - Transfer policy to be
read as a whole, and transfer within zone does
not attract special provisions for lady officers -
Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor relied upon.
(Para 16-19, 23-25)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor; 1936 SCC
Online PC 41

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)
4 All. Kavita Giri Vs. Union of India & Ors.
243

1. Heard Dr. L.P.Mishra, Advocate
assisted by Sri Asit Srivastava, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay
Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, for the
opposite parties no. 2 to 6. No one is
present for the Union of India.

2. This matter is being decided finally
at admission stage on the consent of
counsels for both the parties.

3. Under challenge is the order dated
04-11-2023,
passed
by
the
General
Manager (HRM), Bank of Baroda i.e.
opposite party no. 6 as well as the order
dated 09-06-2023 passed by the Regional
Head, Bank of Baroda, which are said to be
passed in utter violation of the order dated
13-07-2023, by this court in Special Appeal
No. 347 of 2023 and against the transfer
policy, particularly, with respect to the lady
officers of the respondent Bank.

4. Factual matrix of the case are that
the petitioner was initially appointed on 2611-2008, on the post of Probationary Clerk,
in Vijaya Bank, which was subsequently
merged into Bank of Baroda and she joined
in
the
office
at
district-Lucknow.
Thereafter, in the year, 2012, she was
promoted on the post of Assistant Manager
in the office at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
Later on, the petitioner was transferred on
23-05-2022 to Kanpur Dehat Region from
Lucknow office and being far away from
her family (parental and matrimonial),
there was hardship before the petitioner and
therefore, she requested for her transfer in
nearby place and considering the request of
the petitioner, she was transferred to
Kanpur Metro Region Kanpur.

5. The Transfer Policy was framed on
31-03-2019 by the Board of Bank of
Baroda under the regulations, published on
the official website of the bank on 31-03-
2019, wherein Clause 8.9 of the Transfer
Policy provides that the lady employees
posted upto Scale-III posts, shall be posted
as per their request for a stipulated tenure
of three years.

6. On 09-06-2023, the petitioner was
transferred
from
Kanpur
(U.P.)
to
Vadodara(Gujarat), on inter-zonal transfer,
on the ground of 'longest stay' in one zone.
As soon the inter zonal transfer was
communicated
to
the
petitioner,
she
preferred a detailed representation before
the respondent-bank, citing therein the
hardships
of
staying
thousands
of
Kilometers away from her family members
and her mother and also shown severity of
medical condition with respect to her
elders. On 16-06-2023, her representation
was rejected by the Zonal Office at
Lucknow and the same was communicated
to the petitioner on 16-06-2023 through email by the opposite party no. 3 and the
relieving order was passed on 17-06-2023
from Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur Branch.

7. Being aggrieved with the order
dated
17-06-2023,
the
petitioner
approached this court on 19-06-2023 while
preferring a writ petition, which was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on
21-06-2023, whereafter, an Special Appeal
bearing No. 347 of 2023 was filed,
wherein, on 13-07-2023, while setting aside
the Judgment and Order passed by the
Hon'ble Single Judge, the petitioner was
permitted to make a fresh representation
and the opposite parties were directed to
decide the same in accordance with law and
thereafter, the petitioner joined her duties at
Harjinder Nagar Branch at district-Kanpur,
but, she was told to join her duties at
Sisamau Branch on deputation and the
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner joined at Sisamau Branch on 2108- 2023. Thereafter, on 28-07-2023, the
petitioner preferred a representation before
the General Manager, Bank of Baroda, but,
on 08-09-2023, the petitioner was again
sent on deputation at Behrana Road Branch
and ultimately, the representation of the
petitioner is rejected vide order dated 1109-2023, which was challenged by the
petitioner vide Writ A No. 7984 of 2023,
wherein an order was passed on 18-102023 and the learned Single Judge while
disposing of the abovesaid writ petition,
left it open to the petitioner to
submit
a
fresh
comprehensive
representation
for
redressal
of
her
grievances before the competent authority
and the competent authority was directed to
decide the same within further period of ten
days.
In
compliance
thereof,
a
representation
was
preferred
by
the
petitioner and the same was decided vide
order dated 04-11-2023, which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

8. Contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the impugned order
dated 04-11-2023 is passed in absolute
defiance of the order passed in Special
Appeal No. 347 of 2023 and the order
dated 18-10-2023 passed in Writ A No.
7948 of 2023. He added that the
orders
impugned
suffer
from
non
application of mind as the ground of
longest stay considered by the opposite
parties, is not applicable in the present case
as the provisions of Clause 8.9.5 of the
Transfer Policy with respect to transfer of
the lady officers, is evident that in
consideration of any request for transfer of
any lady officer by the bank at anyone
instance, shall be for one tenure of posting
i.e. 3 years and after completion of one
tenure of posting in the requested region, it
is open to the bank to transfer such
employee from the said region but so far as
the present matter is concerned, the locking
period of three years, is admittedly not
completed.

9. Adding his arguments, he submits
that the transfer of the petitioner is with
malafide intention and for harassing her
and is not in consonance with the Transfer
Policy as the opposite parties have acted in
a most arbitrary and illegal manner, as the
petitioner is not only transferred, but, she
has been forced, while seizing her bank
accounts and discontinuing her salary,
which is her hard earned money.

10. Further contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that since the
Judgment and Order dated 13-07-2023
passed by this court in Special Appeal No.
347 of 2023, is evident that the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this court has observed
that earlier transfer policy is pari materia to
the subsequent transfer policy with respect
to the transfer of lady officers, however, in
the new transfer policy, the request of
transfer, appears to be confined to the
request of transfer involving change of
zone i.e. inter-zonal transfers, whereas, in
case of transfer of any lady officer, on her
request at anyone instance, her tenure of
posting shall be three years, remains the
same even in the new transfer policy and
the Division Bench of this court has also
taken note of the fact so far as paragraph
8.9.1 of the Transfer Policy is concerned,
which stipulates that the 'Bank recognizes
the commitment, responsibilities of lady
employees towards home, family and office
and will remain empathetic on issues
regarding their transferability.'

11. Sheet anchor of the argument of
counsel for the petitioner is that the
impugned orders passed by the opposite
4 All. Kavita Giri Vs. Union of India & Ors.
245
parties are in utter violation of the Transfer
Policy of the Bank and it reflects non
application of mind by the concerned
authorities as the petitioner has been
thrown thousands of Kilometers away from
her place of posting, coupled with the
argument that the transfer order passed is
also in violation of the observations made
in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023 as well
as the order passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge, subsequently. Therefore, submission
is that the orders impugned are wholly
without application of mind, unjustified
and against the Transfer Policy and at the
same time i.e. against the observations of
the Hon'ble Division Bench made in
Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023. Thus,
submission is that the impugned orders
may be quashed.

12. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-bank
has vehemently opposed the contentions
aforesaid and submitted that after the order
passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge on 1810- 2023, in Writ A No. 7948 of 2023, a
representation was moved by the petitioner,
which has rightly and lawfully been
decided by the opposite party no. 6, vide
order dated 04-11-2023. While adding his
arguments, he straightaway came to the
provisions of the Transfer Policy i.e. 8.9
meant for transfer of the Lady Officers and
contended that the provisio of 8.9.5 of the
Transfer Policy, cannot be read in isolation,
as the same starts from the proviso 8.9.1 of
the Transfer Policy and if the provision of
8.9.4 of the Transfer Policy is read in toto,
that itself is explanatory that the same
speaks about the transfer from one zone to
another zone.

13. Adding his arguments, he submits
that so far as the proviso 8.9.4 of the
Transfer Policy is concerned, that speaks
that 'such requests may be considered upto
Scale III but not more than two occasions
in the entire career, as 'Only such requests
which involve change of zone shall be
reckoned for being counted under this
clause.' and so far as the present case is
concerned, the petitioner is not transferred
from one zone to another zone but her
transfer was made on her request in
Lucknow Zone, i.e. from Kanpur Dehat
Region to Kanpur Metro Region. Further
for sometimes, looking into the work in
different branches, she was sent on
deputation on other branch in Kanpur
region itself.

14. He next submits that so far as
proviso 8.9.2 of the Transfer Policy is
concerned, that too, is with respect to the
transfer from one zone to another zone, i.e.
known as inter zonal transfer. Thus
concluding his arguments, he submits that
since the transfer of the petitioner is in
consonance with the provisions of the
Transfer
Policy
and
therefore,
no
interference is warranted in the transfer
order dated 04-11-2023.

15. Having heard the learned counsels
for the parties and after perusal of the
material placed on record, two basic legal
questions emerge so as to resolve the
controversy in question. The first and
foremost question is as to whether the
transfer of the petitioner is in contravention
of the Clause 8.9 (proviso 8.9.1 to proviso
8.9.5) of the Transfer Policy with respect to
the transfer of the lady officers? The
second question is as to whether the
transfer order dated 04-11-2023, is hit by or
under the teeth of the Judgment and Order
passed in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023
dated 13-07- 2023 as well as order dated
18-10-2023 passed in Writ A No. 7948 of
2023?
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. When this court examines the first
question, it is relevant to go through the
extract of the Transfer Policy with respect
of the lady officers, which is quoted
hereinunder :-

"8.9 TRANSFER OF LADY
OFFICERS

8.9.1
Bank
recognizes
the
concomitant
responsibilities
of
lady
employees towards home, family and office
and will remain empathetic on issues
regarding their transferability. 8.9.2 At the
time of initial placement upon recruitment,
Bank shall, as far as possible, place lady
officers (married/ unmarried) to the Zone
of her choice, on her request or to the
nearest zone of her choice subject to
availability of vacancies in the said zone.

In case of unavailability of
vacancies, such female officers can be
posted to other Zone as per Bank's
requirement.

8.9.3 For lady Officers upto
MMG/S-III, Bank shall consider requests
for transfer on marriage grounds/on the
grounds of joining spouse etc., subject to
availability of vacancies at the requested
Region.

8.9.4 Such requests may be
considered upto Scale III but not more than
two occasions in the entire career. Only
such requests which involve change of zone
shall be reckoned for being counted Under
this clause

8.9.5
Consideration
of
any
request for transfer of any lady Officer by
the Bank at any one instance, shall be for
one tenure of posting (3 years). After
completion of one tenure of posting in the
requested Region, it shall be open to the
Bank to transfer her from the said Region
in accordance with the Bank's business
requirements, or in furtherance of any
other policy/guidelines of the Bank/Govt.
like career path policy, job rotation
guidelines etc. Thus the female Officers
who have been granted any placement in
accordance with her request, shall be
transferable in line with the general
transfer policy provisions of longest stay,
career path policy, job rotation policy etc.
as may be applicable to her on completion
of one stipulated tenure of posting in such
place."

17.

Perusal
of
the
aforesaid
provisions,
indicates
the
enabling
provisions regarding the transfer of the lady
officers and the instructions, which are to
be taken care of. This Transfer Policy is
meant looking into the responsibilities of
the lady employees towards home, family
and office, but, the same cannot be read
aloof,
as
the
other
provisions
are
explanatory which says that the request
under the provisions of Transfer Policy of
the lady officers may be considered not
more than two occasions in the entire
career and the further provision, which is of
much
importance,
to
resolve
the
controversy is that 'only such requests
which involve change of zone, shall be
reckoned for being counted under this
clause'. In the next clause i.e. proviso 8.9.5
of the Transfer Policy, it has also been
provided that 'Consideration of any request
for transfer of any lady Officer by the Bank
at any one instance, shall be for one tenure
of posting i.e. for 3 years'.

18. It is obvious from the aforesaid
provisions, that the special provision with
respect to the transfer of the lady officers,
will be considered subject to the request of
such lady officer from one zone to another
zone and then only the rider of three years,
as provided under the proviso 8.9.5 of the
Transfer Policy, would attract. Further,
clause 8.9.4 readwith Clause 8.9.5 of the
4 All. Kavita Giri Vs. Union of India & Ors.
247
Transfer Policy for the lady officers, do not
leave any confusion with respect to the
benefit of rider of three years subject to
condition of the transfer from one zone to
another zone.

19. It is not in dispute that the transfer
of the petitioner is made within the zone,
from one region to another region i.e. in
Kanpur Dehat Region to Kanpur Metro
Region and that's why, the proviso 8.9.4
readwith proviso 8.9.5 of the Transfer
Policy, do not attract in the present matter
and therefore, answer accordingly is that
the transfer order of the petitioner dated 0411-2023, is in no way violative of any
directions/provisions
envisaged
under
Clause 8.9.1 to 8.9.5 of the Transfer Policy.

20. Now coming to the next legal
question as to whether the impugned
transfer order is in any way passed in
violation of the Judgment and Order dated
13-07-2023, passed in Special Appeal No.
347 of 2023 and the Judgment and Order
dated 18-10-2023 passed in Writ A No.
7948 of 2023.

21. Having at a glance, the Judgment
and Order dated 13-07-2023, passed in
Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023, it
transpires that the Special Appeal No. 347
of 2023, was filed by the petitioner
assailing the Judgment and Order dated 2106-2023 passed in Writ A No. 4679 of
2023. The Hon'ble Single Judge did not
find any illegality or erroneousness in the
transfer order dated 09-06-2023 challenged
earlier and therefore, the writ petition was
dismissed, whereafter the Division Bench
of this court while dealing with the matter
in Special Appeal No. 347 of 2023, set
aside the Judgment and Order dated 21-062023 and left it open to the petitioner to
move a representation and the opposite
parties were directed to consider the same,
particularly, in the light of the provisions of
the 'Transfer Policy Of The Lady Officers'
of the respondent bank.

22. Much emphasis is also placed on
para nos. 12 & 15 of the Judgment and
Order dated 13-07-2023 passed in Special
Appeal No. 347 of 2023 and it's tried to
substantiate that the Division Bench of this
court, has directed the opposite parties to
consider the object of having separate and
distinct provision for transfer of the lady
officers while passing the fresh orders and
the impugned order does not disclose that
the same is complied with by the opposite
party-bank.

23. In totality, the transfer of the
petitioner is governed with an special
provision of transfer of the lady officer.
The Division Bench of this court in
paragraph no. 12 of the Judgment and
Order dated 13-07-2023 passed in Special
Appeal No. 347 of 2023, has noticed the
provisions of the Transfer Policy as 'to be
confined to request of transfer involving
change of zone i.e. interzonal transfers'.
Therefore, the Transfer Policy cannot be
read in isolation, particularly, with respect
to Clause 8.9.1 of the Transfer Policy, but,
it has to be read in toto and qualifying
Clause 8.9.4 and Clause 8.9.5 shall also be
read alongwith Clause No. 8.9.1. The
aforesaid provisions are very clear in it's
terms that if a transfer is made on the
request of a lady officer, such request is
reckoned for being counted in case of
change of zone i.e. inter zonal transfer.

24. Undisputedly, the tenure of the
posting on request would be for a period of
three years, which is a rider provided under
Clause 8.9.5 of the Transfer Policy, but,
such rider would only be invoked, in the
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
event, when the transfer is made inter zonal
and in all over the Judgment and Order of
the Division Bench, there is no such
direction to ignore the rest of the provisions
of the Transfer Policy regarding the lady
officers, more so, the provision of inter
zonal transfer, is also viewed.

25. Resultantly, the second question is
also decided negatively, as the impugned
transfer order dated 04- 11-2023 is in no
way violative of the order or direction
issued vide judgment and order dated 1307-2023 passed in Special Appeal No. 347
of 2023 as well as the Judgment and Order
dated 21-06-2023 passed in Writ A No.
4679 of 2023.

26. This court is also not unmindful to
the several verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, wherein it is held that the statute or
rules made thereunder, should be read as a
whole and one provision should be
construed with reference to the other
provision to make the provision consistent
with the object sought to be achieved.

27. It is settled law, started from the
Judgment in the case of Nazir Ahmad
Vs.King Emperor, rendered by the Privy
Council, reported in 1936 SCC Online PC
41, as well as the consistent view of the
Hon'ble Apex Court that where the law
prescribes a thing to be done in a particular
manner
while
following
a
particular
procedure,it shall be done in the same
manner following the provisions of law,
without deviating from the prescribed
procedure. Conclusively, it is to be done in
a manner prescribed not otherwise.

28.
In
view
of
the
abovesaid
submissions and discussions, the writ
petition is devoid of merits, hence, the Writ
Petition is dismissed accordingly.

29. No order as to costs
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 248
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 3258 of 2024

Sanjay Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Shankar, Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C

A. Service Law - U.P. Collection Amins
Service Rules, 1974 - Rule 19-A -
Constitutional
Law
-
Article
226
-
Alternative Remedy - Natural Justice - Writ
Petition - Maintainability - Petitioner challenged
removal order dated 12.01.2024 passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate (SDM) - Contended order
was without jurisdiction (SDM not appointing
authority) and violative of natural justice - Held,
SDM is appointing authority under Rule 19-A,
not District Magistrate, despite approval of
select list by latter - Alleged procedural
irregularities (e.g., not calling witnesses, not
considering reply properly) do not constitute
gross
violation
of
natural
justice
-
No
exceptional circumstances (e.g., violation of
fundamental rights, natural justice, lack of
jurisdiction, or challenge to vires of Act) to
bypass statutory appeal remedy - Writ petition
dismissed
for
availability
of
efficacious
alternative remedy - Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs
Excise and Taxation Officer and Whirlpool
Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks relied
upon. (Para 14, 18-20, 23)

Writ petition dismissed.

List of Cases cited: