Archana Singh vs Chief General Manager State Bank Of India Lko. And

7. Mr. Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that though the provision of the policy is not mentioned in the order but the policy as such has been considered. He further submitted that the request of the petitioner has thoroughly been considered in compliance of the transfer policy, therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner is a woman and she is working with the respondent bank. It is apparent from the pleadings that the son of the petitioner, who is about 4 1/2 years of age, is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and in respect of the same, a disability certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, which has been appended as Annexure No. 17 along with the petition.

9. When this court examines the transfer policy, it is apparent from the clause

4.4 as well as Clause 4.5.2 of the policy that an employee who is a care giver of the dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with specified disabilities, which are defined under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016, shall be exempted the routine transfer/rotational transfer, subject administrative constraint and further, it is provided in Clause 4.4(a) that effort must be made to accommodate, as far as possible, transfer/posting of married employee, on her request, at the place, where her husband is stationed or at nearby place, as possible.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner, vide his contention as well as records appended along with the writ petition, succeeds to substantiate that the son of the petitioner is suffering with the disability, which comes under the category of the specified disabilities provided under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016. This court also finds that the provision which is prescribed under Clause 4.4 of the policy, which was promulgated, in the year 2025, has also not been considered as there is no discussion or finding with respect to the same. 4 WRIA No. 11900 of 2025

11. Consequently, the rejection orders dated 14.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and

12.09.2025, impugned herein in this writ petition are hereby quashed.

12. The petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation while raising her claim, mentioning the provisions of the transfer policy, before the opposite party no. 2 within a period of one week and if such a representation is moved, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a further period of three weeks, in accordance with law, particularly including the law applicable at the time being enforced.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties. October 9, 2025 DiVYa (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

7. Mr. Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that though the provision of the policy is not mentioned in the order but the policy as such has been considered. He further submitted that the request of the petitioner has thoroughly been considered in compliance of the transfer policy, therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner is a woman and she is working with the respondent bank. It is apparent from the pleadings that the son of the petitioner, who is about 4 1/2 years of age, is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and in respect of the same, a disability certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, which has been appended as Annexure No. 17 along with the petition.

9. When this court examines the transfer policy, it is apparent from the clause

4.4 as well as Clause 4.5.2 of the policy that an employee who is a care giver of the dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with specified disabilities, which are defined under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016, shall be exempted the routine transfer/rotational transfer, subject administrative constraint and further, it is provided in Clause 4.4(a) that effort must be made to accommodate, as far as possible, transfer/posting of married employee, on her request, at the place, where her husband is stationed or at nearby place, as possible.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner, vide his contention as well as records appended along with the writ petition, succeeds to substantiate that the son of the petitioner is suffering with the disability, which comes under the category of the specified disabilities provided under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016. This court also finds that the provision which is prescribed under Clause 4.4 of the policy, which was promulgated, in the year 2025, has also not been considered as there is no discussion or finding with respect to the same. 4 WRIA No. 11900 of 2025

11. Consequently, the rejection orders dated 14.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and

12.09.2025, impugned herein in this writ petition are hereby quashed.

12. The petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation while raising her claim, mentioning the provisions of the transfer policy, before the opposite party no. 2 within a period of one week and if such a representation is moved, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a further period of three weeks, in accordance with law, particularly including the law applicable at the time being enforced.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties. October 9, 2025 DiVYa (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench