Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3295 (HP)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS v. MANSI NEGI AND ANOTHER

LPA/181/2026 · 2026-04-17

Bipin Chander Negi, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:HHC:12220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 181 of 2026 Date of decision: 17.04.2026. Punjab National Bank & others ...Appellants. Versus Ms. Mansi Negi & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Sr. Advocate with Arvind Sharma and Mr. Anuj Bali, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advocates. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral): The present appeal is directed against the interim order dated 03.03.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 17869 of 2025, titled Mansi Negi vs. PNB & others. 2. The learned Single Judge had directed that to put an end to the litigation, the writ petitioner be posted at Dehradun by the next of hearing, which was 23.03.2026. It is also pertinent to notice that in the order dated 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 29.01.2026 (A-8), passed by the Bank, it was observed that while deciding the representation, the writ petitioner be offered posting at Dehradun for future consideration. The counsel for the petitioner had also agreed that the petitioner is not averse to her transfer at Dehradun in the proceedings of 03.03.2026. In such circumstances, counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the bank can have now no objection with the said order, apart from the fact of maintainability of the present appeal. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the bank on the other hand has submitted that the bank has right to take departmental action and by passing an order dated 9.4.2026 in CMP No. 6969 of 2026, wherein the bank has been directed that no order shall be passed without leave of the Court will be passed on the departmental side, neither any disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated without taking the Court into confidence. 4. It is accordingly pointed out that transfer orders from Solan to Hamirpur were passed on 22.7.2025. The petitioner had only joined for one day on 25.7.2025 at Hamirpur as Lead District Manager and thereafter she filed -3- writ petition on 27.10.2025 and has remained absent. No interim order was passed in her favour and therefore, the right of the bank as such to take any action against her has been nipped in the bud. 5. We have gone through the record and find that various representations were filed by the petitioner. The representation dated 19.11.2025 for her posting at Solan had been rejected, on 1.12.2025 for lack of vacancy Another representation dated 01.12.2025 seeking a posting again at Solan on the ground of impending retirement as such had been preferred, apparently on account of the fact that the writ-petitioner is a single parent with a eight years old daughter and elderly mother, who is residing at Nahan and therefore, objection had been taken by the petitioner for posting at Hamirpur, which is at considerable distance of seven hours. In such circumstances, directions had been passed by the learned Single Judge on 9.1.2026 to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks. 6. Perusal of communication dated 13.1.2026 (Annexure P-4) would go on to show that the bank asked -4- her medical record regarding her claim of illness and spine related health issues and also the medical certificate from the medical practitioner, which has not been supplied by the employee on the ground that it is not possible to get a certificate after passing of five months, which would be clear from the minutes of the meeting held on 29.1.2026 pursuant to the directions of learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, the rejection was made that she could not be adjusted at Solan. However, the observations made by the Zonal Manager, Zonal Office Shimla in order dated 29.01.2026 read as under:- “Upon a sympathetic review of the hardships cited, the Bank finds that posting of Ms. Mansi Negi at Solan is administratively and regulatorily untenable given her residential and medical ties to Dehradun, the petitioner may submit a formal request for a transfer to that station for future consideration. Consequently, the transfer to LDM Hamirpur is upheld as a routine administrative action issued to safeguard Bank interests. Accordingly, the representation of Ms. Mansi Negi dated 01.12.2025 is hereby disposed of and the present speaking order be communicated to Ms. Mansi Negi in compliance of direction dated 09.01.2026 of the Hon’ble Court”. 7. Apparently, in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner be adjusted at Dehradun. -5- 8. It is not disputed that in COPC No. 301 of 2026 also directions were issued that LPA has been filed and transfer will be subject to final outcome of the appeal and she should join at Deharadun by 18.4.2026. It is apparently a consent order. Counsel for the bank had accepted the said fact. The said order dated 18.4.2026 in COPC No. 301 of 2026 reads as under:- “Petitioner alleges violation of direction issued in the order dated 03.03.2026 passed in CWP No. 17869/2025. In terms of the direction, respondents No.1 & 2 in the writ petition inter- alia were directed as under: - “In light of this fact, respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to ensure that to put an end to this litigation, orders are passed to post the petitioner at Dehradun.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has apprised that though against the above-referred interim order, LPA No. 181/2026 has been preferred, however, there is, as of now, no interim order staying the operation of the aforesaid interim order dated 03.03.2026. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed on record office instructions dated 16.04.2026 issued by Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Zonal Manager of the respondent- Bank, conveying as under: - “In this regard, you are requested to inform the Hon’ble High Court that the bank is ready to transfer the petitioner to Zonal Office Dehradun for further posting at Dehradun and the transfer shall be subject to final outcome of the LPA No. 181/2026 and CWP No. 17868/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the basis of instructions imparted to him, submits that in case the petitioner -6- reports for joining at the office of the respondentBank at Dehradun on or before 18.04.2026, she shall be permitted to join in compliance with the direction issued on 03.03.2026 in CWP No. 17869/2025. However, such joining shall be subject to the final outcome of LPA No. 181/2026. The above is acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. For overseeing the compliance, list on 20.04.2026”. 9. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that apart from maintainability of the appeal, in view of the law in 2006 (5) SCC 399 titled, Midnapore Peoples' Co-Op. Bank Ltd. vs. Chunilal Nanda & others, decided on 25 May, 2006, would also stand in the way of the bank, more so, when the bank itself had taken a view that they would adjust her at Dehradun. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the direction issued to the bank by the learned single Judge to put an end to the litigation, is well justified. However, keeping in view the inordinate delay as such in approaching the Court and the fact that the writ petitioner never joined duties and in the absence of any stay, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open to the bank to approach the learned Single Judge for modifying the order passed in CMP No. 6969 of 2026 whereby it has been precluded from taking any departmental action against the writ-petitioner. Needless -7- to say that in case the writ petition is rendered infructuous also the said order might not stand in the way of the bank, being an interim order, which would go along-with the decision of writ petition. It is also pertinent to mention that the bank as such is not averse if the petitioner joins at Dehradun and similarly, counsel for the writ petitioner is also satisfied if the petitioner joins at Dehradun. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 17th April, 2026 (kck)