Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vipin Kumar v. General Manager, Canara Bank And Others - WRIT - A No. 34074 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13092 (27 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34074 of 2007

Vipin Kumar


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V. K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of transfer from Canara Bank Branch at Delhi Road, Meerut to Daha Branch.

Contention of petitioner is that transfer order is against bipartite settlement and further, lot of inconvenience would be caused on account of said transfer.

Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel appearing for the Bank, has supported the order of transfer by contending that petitioner holds transferable post, and the authority who has passed the order of transfer, has full competence to pass such orders, as such same warrants no interference.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that it is not an isolated case of transfer, rather along with petitioner, other incumbents have also been transferred, and there is a long list of  incumbents who have been transferred, and this is the reason that petitioner has not appended the entire list. This fact has not been disputed that petitioner holds transferable post and the authority who has passed the order of transfer is competent to pass such order of transfer. Petitioner has tried to contend that as per terms and conditions of deployment, period of deployment has to be two years in a difficult centre decided by the Bank in accordance with the Government Guidelines and three years in other centres.

In case there is any violation of the agreement which has been entered into inter se parties, then qua the same, petitioner can always approach the higher authority, but as far as this Court is concerned, this Court will not come to rescue of petitioner, that too when order of transfer has been passed by competent authority, coupled with the fact that placement has been made from one Branch to another Branch of the Bank, as such order of transfer warrants no interference.

Consequently, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.