Transfer Policies Are Administrative Guidelines, Not Enforceable Rights; Voluntary Retirement Can't Be Withdrawn After Acceptance: P&H HC

Background

Babita Kaushal, a Scale-I officer at Punjab Gramin Bank, was transferred from Hoshiarpur to Shri Har Gobindpur by an administrative order dated 18/04/2024. She challenged the transfer (CWP-12146-2024), claiming it violated the bank's Transfer Policy, 2023. Simultaneously, she applied for voluntary retirement (hereinafter, “VRS”), citing health concerns.

While awaiting a response on her VRS application, she filed a writ petition against the transfer order. The court granted a stay on 23/05/2024. Meanwhile, the bank accepted her VRS request on 27/05/2024. The next day, she attempted to withdraw her VRS application, arguing it had been submitted under coercion. However, the bank refused to allow the withdrawal. Aggrieved, she then filed a second writ petition (CWP-18321-2024) and challenged the acceptance of her VRS application.

Arguments

Babita Kaushal argued that her transfer order was invalid under Clause 8(i) of the Transfer Policy, 2023, which allows officers within three years of retirement to be posted in their home region. Further, she contended that her medical condition made her unfit to travel, and the bank's refusal to consider her health concerns violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Regarding VRS, she asserted that she had the right to withdraw her application before retirement and that the bank's refusal was arbitrary. Regarding VRS, she asserted that she had the right to withdraw her application before retirement and that the bank's refusal was arbitrary. Relying on Balram Gupta v. Union of India (1987 INSC 235), she argued that voluntary retirement could be withdrawn before acceptance.

The bank opposed both petitions, arguing that transfer is an administrative matter and policies do not confer legal rights. It stated that Ms. Kaushal had vacated her post, and a new officer had already taken charge. It pointed how despite the transfer order, she remained absent and misused her medical leave. It also emphasized that under Regulation 27(4) of the Punjab Gramin Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 2018, withdrawal of VRS requires the competent authority's approval, which was not sought. The bank maintained that Ms. Kaushal's withdrawal request was a strategic move after securing a stay on her transfer. Further, the bank submitted that once VRS had been accepted, it couldn't be withdrawn unless permitted by the competent authority.

Court's Findings

Firstly, the court held that transfer is an incident of service and that employees cannot demand postings at specific locations. Citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav (1995 INSC 63), it reiterated that courts should not interfere in transfers unless mala fide intentions are proven. Since the petitioner did not allege mala fides, the court upheld the transfer order.

Secondly, on the VRS issue, the court found that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 20/04/2024 solely on medical grounds. It noted that her withdrawal request came only after her VRS had been accepted on 27/05/2024. Under Regulation 27(4), withdrawal is not automatic and requires approval from the competent authority. Since no such approval was sought, the court held that her withdrawal attempt was invalid.

Thirdly, the court also noted that mere delay in relieving an employee does not impact the acceptance of resignation. It observed that withdrawal of a resignation after acceptance is subject to statutory regulations. Further, the court also distinguished her case from Balram Gupta v. Union of India (1987 INSC 235), where voluntary retirement was withdrawn before acceptance. The court held that once VRS is accepted, as in this case, withdrawal is impermissible.

Lastly, the court observed that the petitioner's conduct indicated an attempt to manipulate the system. It noted that she remained absent from duty for over a month, sought VRS while challenging her transfer, and withdrew the VRS application only after her transfer was stayed. The court held that her claim of being unfit to travel disappeared immediately after securing the stay, indicating bad faith.

Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed.

Decided on: 21/02/2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:025485

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rishabh Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Saurav Verma and Ms. Preeti Grover

Click Here To Read/Download The Order