1. This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant/ writ petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 7th September, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits with costs assessed at 300 G.Ms. The appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the decision of the authorities of the respondent-bank to transfer the said appellant/writ petitioner by issuing the Memo dated August 18, 2009 to Guwahati office on the ground that the said writ petitioner is entitled to exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank. The aforesaid order of transfer issued by the respondent-bank under Memo dated August 18, 2009 is set out hereunder:
No.DAPM(Kol).ST. 1814/03.34.03/2009-10 August 18, 2009
Sri Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty (CC-0227) Assistant Manager Department of Administration & Personnel Management Reserve Bank of India Kolkata
Dear Sir
Staff Class I Assistant Manager - Transfer
In pursuance to the order dated July 29, 2009 passed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta it has been decided to transfer you in your existing capacity to Guwahati Office, one of the centres of your choice recorded in the Honble High Court order dated July 01, 2009. Accordingly, you will be relieved from this office as at the close of the business on August 18, 2009 with instructions to report for duty to the Regional Director, Reserved Bank of India, Guwahati within seven days from the date of issue of this letter.
Yours faithfully
S/d
Assistant General Manager (Personnel)
2. From the records we find that on an earlier occasion a Division Bench of this court by the judgment and order dated July 29, 2009 finally disposed of another appeal preferred earlier by the appellant herein being A.P.O. No. 173 of 2009 as hereunder:
The order of the learned single Judge is modified to the extent that the writ petition would be allowed to a limited extent holding that the Reserve Bank of India would be duty bound to consider the prayer for change of posting by considering the choice of posting as recorded in the order dated 1st July, 2009. In case the bank does not want to adhere to any of the choices made by the appellant they must assign reason not only for discarding each of the centers but also assigning special reason for placing him at Hyderabad and Hyderabad only. So long such exercise is not done by the bank the appellant would be allowed to work at Calcutta. The appellant would, however, be obliged to proceed to his transferred place of posting within seven days from the date of communications of the decision of the bank. The appeal is disposed of without any order as to costs.
3. As a matter of fact in terms of the aforesaid order passed by the earlier Division Bench on July 29, 2009 impugned transfer order dated August 18, 2009 was issued by the authorities of the respondent-bank whereby the appellant herein was transferred to Guwahati in his existing capacity.
4. The appellant/writ petitioner was, however, aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of transfer issued by the competent authority of the respondent-bank and challenged the same by filing another writ petition before this court which was finally dismissed by the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner urged before this court that the appellant/writ petitioner herein is entitled to claim exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank since the said appellant/writ petitioner attained the age of 56 years on July 20, 2009.
5. The appellant/writ petitioner by a written representation dated 18th August, 2009 requested the Assistant General Manager (Personnel), Reserve Bank of India to cancel the transfer order. The respondent-bank, however, refused to allow the aforesaid prayer of the appellant/writ petitioner, as according to the authorities of the respondent-bank, appellant/writ petitioner cannot claim any exemption from the transfer in terms of any policy decision of the respondent-bank.Mr. Arijit Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-bank produced the policy note for Annual Transfer Policy (ATP 2009) wherein the criteria of transfer has been specifically mentioned as hereunder:
6 (b) Criteria of Transfer While reviewing the transfer proposals under ATP-2008, ED (VKS) had observed that the cut-off date for reckoning the stay should be 1st July. Data has been called for from offices accordingly. Officers in Grade B and C with a stay of 5 years and above at other centres and 10 years and above at Mumbai may be identified for transfer. However, officers who would complete 56 years of age as on 1st July may be exempted from transfer.
6. Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner invited our attention to the information supplied by the Reserve Bank of India by the written communication dated June 10, 2008 under the Right to Information Act wherein the specific query relating to the transfer policy of the bank has been answered as hereunder:
3 ii The name of the officers who are figured in the Annual Transfer List for 2007 and 2008 have prayed for deferment of transfers, ground of deferment may be furnished. Some Officers in Gr. A have been granted deferment during Annual Transfer Policy 2007 on individual merits. As per decision taken by the Bank, these officers have been exempt from transfer during ATP 2008 as they have completed more than 56 years of age (list enclosed). The requests for deferment received from the officers in Gr. A have not been considered so far.
7. Mr. Sanyal also referred to and relied on the informations supplied by the Reserve Bank of India by the written communication dated November 3, 2009 under the Right to Information Act in reply to the specific query of the appellant in relation to the transfer policy of the bank. The relevant extracts from the said written communication are set out hereinbelow:
DAPM.CO.RIA.5847/07.50.01/2009-10 November 3, 2009 Speed Post Sri. Prabhat Kumar Chakravarty Vill & P.O.Bankra, Napit Para P.S. Bankra, Beat Code No.11 Dist Howrah 711403 (W.B.) Dear Shri Chakravorty The Right to Information Act, 2005 Qurty-Our Ref.No.RIA 833/2009-10 In continuation of our letter DAPM.CO.RIA.5032/07.50.01/2009-10 dated October 12, 2009, we advise as under: Query Reply 3 (i) Kindly state the reasons of the following 21 longest stayed officers in the qualifying channel of SO Gr.A have not been transferred from the parent centre till July 2009 as the stayal is decided on the date of promotion. Out of the 21(twenty one) officers in Gr. A as referred by you, except Shri Prasantha Kumar Mitra , the remaining 20 (twenty) officers in Gr. A were not considered for transfer under Annual Transfer Programme 2009 as they were above 56 years of age during ATP 2009 and the Banks policy is not to transfer officers in Gr. A who have attained the age of 56 years. The remaining officer viz., Shri Mitra had requested Central Office for his retention in Kolkata Office and in view on the circumstances stated in his representation dated February 23, 2009, Central Office decided to accede to his request. Scrutinising the relevant records we find that the appellant/writ petitioner herein did not complete 56 years of age as on 1st July 2009 and therefore the said appellant/writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank. It is true that the other Division Bench while deciding the earlier appeal of the appellant/writ petitioner herein asked the competent authority of the respondent-bank to consider the prayer for change of the posting of the appellant by considering the choice of posting of the said appellant and the concerned authority of the respondent bank transferred the said appellant to the place of his choice.
8. The appellant herein did not complete the age of 56 years at the time of hearing of the said earlier appeal and therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner herein rightly did not claim any exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank before the other Division Bench at the time of hearing of the earlier appeal. Subsequently, the appellant/writ petitioner on receiving the order of transfer dated August 18, 2009 claimed exemption from transfer in terms of the policy decision of the bank on the ground that by that time said appellant completed 56 years of age.
9. However, it cannot be disputed that the cut-off date for reckoning the stay of the officers should be 1st July in terms of criteria of transfer and the officers who would complete 56 years of age as on 1st July may be exempted from transfer. In view of the aforesaid specific criteria of transfer and in terms of the policy of the respondent-bank, appellant/writ petitioner herein is not entitled to claim exemption from transfer since the said appellant did not complete 56 years of age on 1st July, 2009. The learned Single Judge therefore, in our opinion, has rightly refused to cancel the order of transfer issued to the appellant/writ petitioner and dismissed the writ petition on merits. We find no infirmity and/or illegality in the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge and therefore, we refuse to interfere with the same excepting the direction with regard to the payment of costs. Accordingly, we set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge only with regard to awarding of costs to the appellant herein and affirm the rest of the impugned judgment and order under appeal passed by the said learned Single Judge.
10. This appeal thus stands disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Let xerox copies of this judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be supplied to the parties herein on undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the same immediately.