1 2025:HHC:16473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 538 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 253 of 2025 Date of decision: 26.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ UCO Bank …..Appellant Versus Aseem Chaudhary …Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP (M) No. 538 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. 253 of 2025 2. The present appeal by the Bank is directed against the order dated 30.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6257 of 2024, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), vide which the writ petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Branch Office Halog, Dhami to Currency Chest Rohru, District Shimla, was quashed and set aside. The respondents were thus directed to allow the writ petitioner to continue to serve at Halog Dhami for a normal tenure of three years. 3. A perusal of the writ file would go on to show that on 04.07.2024, when the matter was taken up initially, an interim order had been passed in favour of the writ petitioner-employee, which continued during the pendency of the proceedings and eventually, led to the decision of the writ petition in his favour. 3 4. The brief case of the writ petitioner as such was that the writ petitioner, who was serving as a Scale-II Officer at Halog Dhami, Shimla Zone, had been transferred to Currency Chest at Rohru on 19.06.2024, without permitting him to complete his normal Tenure at Halog Dhami. His wife was also working in the appellant’s Bank as Scale-II Officer and vide order dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), she was posted in Branch Office Kamyana, Shimla. 5. In such circumstances, the Transfer Policy as such was fallen back, whereas as per Clause 15 of the Policy, if both husband and wife are employed in the appellant’s Bank, transfer of officers has to be kept in mind. As per Clause 15.1 of the Policy, if both husband and wife are employed in the appellant’s Bank, they shall be posted at the same station, but not at the same branch or office. Similarly, as per Clause 15.2 of the Policy, in case of an Officer being transferred in the normal course, his/her spouse, who is also employed in the Appellant’s Bank as an Officer, 4 shall normally be transferred to the same Zone upon receiving request from his/her spouse, subject to availability of vacancy in the concerned zone. 6. Thus apparently, it was in such circumstances, that the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit to the writ petitioner, while quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), after noticing that the employee himself was posted at Halog Dhami vide order dated 21.04.2023, which was in close proximity to the time and place of posting of his wife, i.e. Kamyana. The writ petitioner had completed only a tenure of about one year at Halog, Dhami and vide impugned transfer order dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure P-4), he was transferred to Currency Chest, Rohru. 7. From the perusal of the reply to the writ petition, it is apparent that earlier, the petitioner remained posted at Meerut Zonal Office w.e.f. 15.07.2016 to 05.09.2016 and thereafter, he was shifted to Deoband Branch under Meerut Zonal Office, 5 where he remained posted w.e.f. 06.09.2016 to 01.05.2017. Thereafter, on his request, he was transferred from Deoband Branch to Shimla Zonal Office on 02.05.2017 and remained posted as such till 24.06.2022. Thereafter, w.e.f. 27.06.2022 to 21.04.2023, he remained posted at LDM Shimla and then on 21.04.2023, he was transferred to Halog, Dhami, Shimla. It has further been averred that an employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time. 8. It is to be noticed that as per Clause 12.2 of the Transfer Policy, normal retention period of an employee at a place is three years. 9. The learned Single Judge has accordingly noted that once a decision had been taken to post the writ petitioner at a place in close proximity to the place of posting of his wife, then he should have been permitted to continue his normal tenure at that particular place. It is not disputed that the new place 6 of posting of the petitioner, i.e. Rohru, is over 100 kilometers away from Shimla, and, therefore, it takes more than three hours to travel from there to Shimla. 10. Apparently, the petitioner had represented on 20.06.2024 vide Annexure P-5 to the Authority concerned seeking cancellation or modification of the impugned transfer order dated 19.06.2024. 11. It had also been averred in para-15 of the writ petition, that one post of Scale-II Officer was going to fall vacant at UCO Bank Currency Chest, Shimla and the writ petitioner could have been adjusted at the said place. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion, as per the Transfer Policy of the Bank itself and granted him the relief keeping in view the circumstances of the case of the writ- petitioner. 13. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 7 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Single Judge and we are not inclined to interference in the same. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 26, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.