The Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Justice Deepak Gupta, recently dismissed two petitions filed by Babita Kaushal, a Scale-I officer of Punjab Gramin Bank, clarifying key points about transfer policies and voluntary retirement. The court ruled that transfer policies are only administrative guidelines, not enforceable legal rights. It also stated that once a voluntary retirement (VRS) request is accepted by the bank, the employee cannot withdraw it unless the applicable regulations allow it.
Background of the Case
Babita Kaushal was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Shri Har Gobindpur by the bank on April 18, 2024. She challenged this transfer, claiming it violated Clause 8(i) of the Punjab Gramin Bank Transfer Policy, 2023, which allows officers nearing retirement (within three years) to remain in their home region. At the same time, she applied for voluntary retirement, citing health concerns.
While waiting for the bank’s decision on her VRS request, she filed a writ petition to block the transfer and secured a temporary stay on May 23, 2024. On May 27, 2024, the bank approved her VRS request. However, the next day, Babita tried to withdraw her retirement request, arguing that she had applied under pressure. The bank rejected her withdrawal, leading her to file a second petition challenging the acceptance of her VRS.
Key Arguments Presented
- Babita Kaushal’s Claims:
- Transfer Violation: She argued that the transfer was against the bank’s policy, which protected officers nearing retirement.
- Health Issues: Babita claimed her poor health made her unfit to travel.
- Right to Withdraw VRS: She argued that she had the right to withdraw her VRS request before retirement, citing the precedent set in Balram Gupta v. Union of India (1987), where voluntary retirement was withdrawn before acceptance.
- Bank’s Defense:
- Transfer Policy: The bank stated that transfers are an administrative matter and do not provide employees with legal rights.
- VRS Regulations: Under Regulation 27(4) of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 2018, withdrawing a VRS request requires approval from the competent authority, which was not granted in this case.
- Employee Conduct: The bank highlighted Babita’s absence from duty, misuse of medical leave, and alleged manipulation of the system by applying for VRS while challenging her transfer.
Court’s Observations and Decision
- Transfer Policies Are Administrative Guidelines:
The court held that transfers are part of an employee’s job and that employees cannot demand to stay at a specific location. It cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav (1995) to emphasize that courts should not interfere in transfer matters unless there is proof of bad intent (mala fide), which was not proven in this case. - VRS Withdrawal Not Automatic:
The court found that Babita’s VRS request had already been accepted by the bank on May 27, 2024. Since Regulation 27(4) requires the bank’s approval for any withdrawal of a VRS request, her attempt to withdraw without approval was invalid. - Distinguishing from Past Cases:
The court clarified that Babita’s case was different from Balram Gupta v. Union of India (1987) because in that case, the voluntary retirement was withdrawn before acceptance, unlike Babita’s case, where her VRS had already been approved. - Bad Faith and Manipulation:
The court noted that Babita’s actions indicated bad faith. She applied for VRS while challenging her transfer and withdrew it only after getting a stay on her transfer order. Her sudden claim of health issues seemed to disappear once the transfer was stayed, suggesting an attempt to misuse the system.
Final Verdict
The court dismissed both of Babita Kaushal’s petitions, upholding the bank’s actions and clarifying important principles regarding transfer policies and voluntary retirement.
Key Takeaways
This case serves as a reminder that:
- Transfer policies are administrative guidelines and do not create enforceable legal rights.
- Employees cannot withdraw voluntary retirement requests after acceptance unless the applicable regulations permit it.
- Courts generally do not interfere in transfer matters unless there is clear evidence of mala fide actions.
