Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010068172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1840/2025 SUBHAM KUMAR SINGH S/O- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DHADKA ROAD NEAR ANDHRA BANK, ASANSOL-2, ASANSOL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DAKHIN DHADKA, BARDDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL-713302 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 34, NARANARAYAN PATH NEAR RICHA PARK, LALMATI, GUWAHATI-781028. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BHAI VEER SINGH SAHITYA SADAN, BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, GOLE MARKET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL HOUSING BANK CORE 5A INDIA HABITAT CENTRE 3RD-5TH FLOOR LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 3:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER NATIONAL HOUSING BANK GUWAHATI FIRST FLOOR BLOCK NO. III HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSA Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. MEHDI HASSAN, A NEOG,G. GOSWAMI,MR. M R SODIAL,MS S Z HAYAT Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. D SAIKIA (R-2&3),H BARUAH(R-2,3),A BARTHAKUR (R-2,3),MS. RUKMINI BARUA(R-2,3),MR. S K MEDHI (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.06.2025 Heard Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Ms. M. Das, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, leaned CGC. 2. The present writ petition is being filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 13.03.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from his present place of posting, namely, the Regional Office, Guwahati, to the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is presently serving as Deputy Manager (MMG Scale-II) in the National Housing Bank and has been discharging his duties diligently and without any adverse remarks. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the National Housing Bank has formulated a 'Transfer and Retention Policy' in the year 2022. Referring to the said policy, it is submitted that under Clause 3.1, officers in Scale I, II, and III are required to serve a minimum tenure of four years at a particular place of posting. It is submitted that the petitioner falls under Scale II, and as such, he is entitled to complete a minimum tenure of four years at his Page No.# 3/8 current posting in Guwahati. 4. It is further submitted that Clause 4.4 of the said policy lays down the priority criteria to be considered in matters of transfer and retention, one of which includes 'health grounds of dependent family members, including persons with benchmark disabilities.' The petitioner’s mother is a senior citizen, currently residing with him in Guwahati, and is undergoing medical treatment. Any dislocation from the present place of posting is likely to cause severe hardship to her and disrupt her ongoing medical care. 5. The learned counsel further refers to Clause 4.3 of the policy, which provides that officers falling within the zone of transfer as on January 1 of each year shall be given prior notice and be called upon to submit their preferences for three locations. It is submitted that no such notice or opportunity to express location preferences was provided to the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although administrative exigency is a valid ground for transfer, the transfer and retention policy formulated by the respondent Bank prescribes clear parameters and procedures, which have not been adhered to in the petitioner’s case. It is submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned transfer order has also been rejected without proper consideration. 7. In the above circumstances, having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition, challenging the impugned transfer order dated 13.03.2025. 8. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, strongly opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the applicability and alleged violation of the Transfer Page No.# 4/8 and Retention Policy. He submits that transfer is an incidence of service and, notwithstanding the parameters laid down in Clause 4 of the policy, Clause 4.5 expressly empowers the management to effect transfers on account of administrative exigencies with the approval of the competent authority. He further draws the attention of this Hon’ble Court to Clause 4.8.1, which provides that the Bank may order suo motu transfers in the exigencies of service and in public interest. Referring to the impugned transfer order dated 13.03.2025, Mr. Saikia submits that the petitioner is one among 52 officers of various scales and categories who have been transferred across different locations, and the petitioner appears at Serial No. 43 in the said list. It is submitted that out of these officers, 29 officers including the petitioner have not completed the full tenure of 4 or 5 years at their respective stations. The transfers, it is contended, were made purely on the ground of administrative rationalization, without any element of malice or arbitrariness. It is also submitted that no officer has been posted in place of the petitioner at Guwahati, which further substantiates the respondents’ stand that the transfers were made to streamline deployment of manpower in the interest of efficient administration. 9. Mr. Saikia further submits that the petitioner was earlier posted in Guwahati in August 2023 upon his own request for transfer to the Kolkata Office or any other office near Kolkata, and thus now cannot claim an equitable right to remain posted in Guwahati. In support of his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, wherein it was held that transfer is an incident of service and can be interfered with only when it is in violation of statutory rules or actuated by mala fide intentions. He also relies on the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Abdul Rahim SK v. State of Assam & Ors., Page No.# 5/8 2017 (2) GLT 20, reiterating that transfer guidelines does not confer enforceable legal rights. 10. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramaniam & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 7 SCC 285, wherein the Court emphasized the need for fixed minimum tenures for civil servants to ensure continuity and efficiency in administration. It is submitted that the Bank’s Transfer and Retention Policy was framed in line with the principles laid down in the said judgment, and therefore the denial of such tenure protection to the petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to the policy’s underlying object and spirit. 11. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available on records have been carefully perused. The impugned transfer order as well as the 'Transfer and Retention Policy' of the National Housing Bank have been examined. It is observed that the policy lays down specific criteria and parameters governing the process of job rotation and transfer of officers. Clause 4.4 of the policy enumerates the grounds on which priority is to be accorded in considering requests for transfer. The said clause specifies that any request for transfer is to be considered giving priority in the following order: 4.1 An officer shall be considered for transfer to other station / place after 5 years of continuous service at the same station. The Bank shall prepare scale wise list of officers who shall fall into zone of transfer to other station/place in order of maximum tenure spent at the same location at one stretch. The transfer shall be effected based on first in first out (FIFO) basis. 4.2 The cut-off date for all such transfers for calculating the tenure spent at one location/office shall be January 01 every year. 4.3 All officers falling under zone of transfer as on January 01 each year shall be given a prior notice, calling for option / choice of 3 locations. The transfer of the officers along with request transfer cases shall be recommended by a Committee with following composition: Page No.# 6/8 One GM to be nominated by MD One OIC RO/RRO to be nominated by MD HOD HRMD Liaison Officer for SC/ST/PwBD Liaison Officer for OBC The recommendation of the Committee shall be submitted to Competent Authority through HRMD. 4.4 While considering any request related to transfer/retention, the priority shall be given in following order: Persons with benchmark disability Women officer on spouse ground Unmarried / widow women Health grounds of an officer Health ground of dependent family member including persons with benchmark disabled dependent 4.5 Notwithstanding the contents of the policy, the management shall have the right to transfer the officers on account of administrative exigencies with due approval of Competent Authority. 12. It is the case projected on behalf of the petitioner that his request for retention at Guwahati ought to have been considered on account of his mother’s health condition, she being a dependent family member. It is not in dispute that Clause 4.4 of the Transfer and Retention Policy specifically recognizes 'health grounds of a dependent family member, including persons with benchmark disabilities' as one of the priority criteria for considering such requests. However, it is equally apparent from the policy that, notwithstanding the parameters laid down therein, the competent authority retains the discretion to transfer officers on grounds of administrative exigency, as provided under Clause 4.5. Additionally, Clause 4.8.1 empowers the Bank to initiate suo motu transfers in exigencies of service and in public interest. 13. Upon perusal of the email communication annexed to the affidavit-in- opposition, which is stated to be the reply rejecting the petitioner’s representation, it is noted that the said communication does not assign any Page No.# 7/8 reasons for rejection of the petitioner’s request for retention. While there can be no quarrel with the legal position that the transfer guidelines or policies do not confer any statutory right enforceable by the petitioner, it is equally true that such policies, having been framed by the Bank itself, form part of its administrative framework and are expected to be followed in a fair and transparent manner. 14. Though the Bank undoubtedly possesses the inherent authority to affect transfers in the interest of administration, it is incumbent upon it to indicate, even briefly, the reasons why the parameters under Clause 4.4 read with Clause 3.1 were not considered applicable in the petitioner’s case, particularly when a specific request citing health grounds of a dependent family member was made. The absence of any such reasoning or consideration in the impugned order or in the Bank's reply renders the transfer order vulnerable to the extent that it appears to have been passed without application of mind to the petitioner’s individual circumstances. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities should revisit the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. While doing so, the authorities shall take into consideration the grounds raised by the petitioner, in particular the request for retention based on the health condition of his ailing mother, who is stated to be a dependent requiring constant medical care, and examine the same in the light of the applicable provisions of the Transfer and Retention Policy. 16. Any order that may be passed pursuant thereto shall be duly served upon the petitioner. It is clarified that no personal hearing is necessary for the purpose of disposal of the representation. The entire exercise shall be Page No.# 8/8 completed within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and, in any case, not later than 23.06.2025. 17. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are required to revisit the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order as directed above. While doing so, the authorities shall take into consideration the specific grounds raised by the petitioner, including the medical condition of his ailing mother, who is stated to be a dependent family member requiring constant medical care, and examine the applicability of the Transfer and Retention Policy to the petitioner’s case. 18. Any such order passed on the petitioner’s representation shall be duly communicated to him. It is clarified that no personal hearing is necessary for the purpose of this exercise. The entire process shall be completed within a period of 10 (ten) days from today and, in any event, not later than 23.06.2025. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted, and it is recorded, that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned transfer order until disposal of the representation as directed herein above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant