IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7557 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yogesh Kumar Gupta …….Petitioner Versus The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Manager Grade-II in The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from afore station to Branch Office Shansha. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of Rules relating to terms of employment and working conditions of the employees approved/framed by the respondent-Bank, which clearly provides that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 normal tenure of posting of employee at one station shall not be less than three years. 3. While making this Court peruse Chapter-9 Clause 34 (e) (in short “Rules”), Mr. Barowalia, states that though normal tenure of posting at one station is three years, but petitioner herein has been transferred within seven months. He further submitted that there are number of employees, who have been working at one station for more than three years, but purposely petitioner has been picked up to be posted at Shansha, which is a hard area. He submitted that since petitioner has already served as Branch Manager in Kaza, he otherwise cannot be posted to a hard area again. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Sohan Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent-bank, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents by transferring the petitioner from present place to Branch Office Shansha, submits that though petitioner may have worked in a tribal area prior to his posting in District Kangra, but that can be cannot any impediment for the respondents to post him again in a hard area, especially when there is admitted exigency. He submits that petitioner herein has been sent to Branch Office Shansha on account of his ability to handle the branch efficiently and generate business. 3 5. While referring to Rules, Mr. Rathore, states that though normal tenure of posting at one station is three years, but in administrative exigency and public interest, an employee can be transferred prior to his/her having completed normal tenure of posting. He further states that petitioner has remained posted in District Kangra throughout his career, save and except for one or two postings and as such, he otherwise cannot be permitted to claim that he has completed normal tenure at present place of posting as he has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that though as per rules, normal tenure of posting of an employee of the bank at one station shall be three years, but in administrative exigency or in public interest, an employee can be transferred prior to three years. In the instant case, petitioner, who otherwise is stated to be efficient officer, has been posted at Branch Office Shansha on account of administrative exigency. 7. Though Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to various judgments passed by this Court, attempted to argue that an employee, who has already worked in a hard area, cannot be transferred again in a hard area, but he was unable to point out any rule framed by the respondent-bank, thereby 4 providing that an employee, who was already posted once in a hard area, cannot be sent again in a hard area. Similarly, he was unable to dispute that petitioner has already served in District Kangra for number of years. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, though this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order, however, having taken note of the fact that vide note dated 15.05.2025, office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, has already requested Managing Director, KCC Bank Dharamshala, to cancel the transfer of the petitioner, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation (Annexure P-2), thereby making request for cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within ten days taking note of the fact that petitioner has already served hard area once in his service career and Hon’ble Chief Minister has desired to cancel the transfer as is evident from note sent by Under Secretary of the Chief Minister on 15.05.2025. Ordered accordingly. 9. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being 5 heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of aforesaid Rules. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, interim order dated 07.05.2025 passed by this Court shall remain in force. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2025 (Sunil)