Anil Kumar vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance (Deptt. Of Financial

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner andSri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Present petition has been filed while laying challenge to the order of transfer dated 16th of May 2025 as well as the rejection of the representation by the appellate committee vide order dated 6th of August 2025. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in Allahabad Bank and he joined on 5th of January 2009 and thereafter, Allahabad Bank was merged with the Indian Bank on 1.4.2020 and all rules and regulations including the transfer policy of Indian Bank is applicable to the present petitioner, also. He submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner was always above board and whenever he was transferred during his service period, he joined without any request of staying such transfer, but, at this time, his spouse is working in the same bank having child of three years, to whom he has to look after. He argued that the petitioner was transferred by order dated 16th of May 2025 and being aggrieved, he moved the representation on 16th May 2025, for cancellation of transfer order which was rejected by the appellate committee, vide order dated 6th of August 2025. He submitted that from the guidelines issued by the Government of India, it is apparent that while making policy of transfer of employees, the bank shall formulate the transfer policy, so as to consider certain categories and in that regard, the spouse and child care is also mentioned. 2 WRIA No. 11918 of 2025 He submitted that from clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy of Indian Bank, it is evident that the same provide for consideration and making endeavour to consider those employees in case of spouse working in PSUs, private banks, etc. to be posted in the same place or nearby area. Clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy pertaining to the Indian bank named as "Transfer Policy for Officers upto Scale Third Version 2.1, read as under:- "12.1. For married Officers (both are officers in Indian Bank): It shall be endeavored to post such officers in the same city/town (not necessarily the station of choice of the officers).

12.2. In case of spouse working in Central / State Governments / PSU and Private banks, Bank shall endeavor to post them in the same place/Zone/FGMO or a nearby place / Zone /FGMO. In such cases the request will be limited to two times in a career (including already availed). However, such Officers can request for transfer after completion of two years in the new place of posting and such requests will be considered subject to vacancies along with normal request transfers." He submitted that the order dated 6th of August 2025 is enough to show that even though the specific grounds claiming the benefit of provision of clause

12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy have been taken by the petitioner for cancellation of the transfer but the same has been ignored by the appellate committee and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected in an arbitrary and cavalier manner. He submitted that there is not a single whisper regarding consideration of the clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy of the Indian bank, in the rejection order. After the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the authorities have ignored to consider the provisions of the transfer policy applicable in the case of the present petitioner, therefore, he may be given liberty to move fresh representation before the appellate committee, against the transfer order dated 16th May 2025, and the same may be directed to be considered within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court. Learning counsel for the Bank has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been made while strictly adhering the transfer policy and the clauses 12.1 and 12.2 are not mandatory rather those are directory, as such, no interference is warranted. 3 WRIA No. 11918 of 2025 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner and his wife both are posted in the same bank and the petitioner has been transferred more than 2000 kms away from the place of his present posting. This court noticed that there is three years' child with his wife. This court has further considered that clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy also provides certain relaxation for consideration of the transfer of any employee, if his spouse is working in any Private Bank or in State Government or Central Government, including the PSUs. When the Court examines the rejection order dated 6th of August 2025 and the representation made by the petitioner, it is apparent that specific ground was taken regarding the provision 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy, but neither the same has been considered nor there is any discussion thereof, in the rejection order. For the forgoing reasons and submissions, the order dated 6th of August 2025 passed by the appellate committee is unsustainable. Resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner is given liberty to move fresh representation within a period of three days before the appellate committee of the respondent bank and if such representation is moved, the bank authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within further period of two weeks, while strictly adhering the transfer policy. For the aforesaid period only, the transfer order dated 16 May 2025, shall be given effect to. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. October 8, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner andSri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. Present petition has been filed while laying challenge to the order of transfer dated 16th of May 2025 as well as the rejection of the representation by the appellate committee vide order dated 6th of August 2025. The contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Probationary Officer in Allahabad Bank and he joined on 5th of January 2009 and thereafter, Allahabad Bank was merged with the Indian Bank on 1.4.2020 and all rules and regulations including the transfer policy of Indian Bank is applicable to the present petitioner, also. He submits that the work and conduct of the petitioner was always above board and whenever he was transferred during his service period, he joined without any request of staying such transfer, but, at this time, his spouse is working in the same bank having child of three years, to whom he has to look after. He argued that the petitioner was transferred by order dated 16th of May 2025 and being aggrieved, he moved the representation on 16th May 2025, for cancellation of transfer order which was rejected by the appellate committee, vide order dated 6th of August 2025. He submitted that from the guidelines issued by the Government of India, it is apparent that while making policy of transfer of employees, the bank shall formulate the transfer policy, so as to consider certain categories and in that regard, the spouse and child care is also mentioned. 2 WRIA No. 11918 of 2025 He submitted that from clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy of Indian Bank, it is evident that the same provide for consideration and making endeavour to consider those employees in case of spouse working in PSUs, private banks, etc. to be posted in the same place or nearby area. Clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy pertaining to the Indian bank named as "Transfer Policy for Officers upto Scale Third Version 2.1, read as under:- "12.1. For married Officers (both are officers in Indian Bank): It shall be endeavored to post such officers in the same city/town (not necessarily the station of choice of the officers).

12.2. In case of spouse working in Central / State Governments / PSU and Private banks, Bank shall endeavor to post them in the same place/Zone/FGMO or a nearby place / Zone /FGMO. In such cases the request will be limited to two times in a career (including already availed). However, such Officers can request for transfer after completion of two years in the new place of posting and such requests will be considered subject to vacancies along with normal request transfers." He submitted that the order dated 6th of August 2025 is enough to show that even though the specific grounds claiming the benefit of provision of clause

12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy have been taken by the petitioner for cancellation of the transfer but the same has been ignored by the appellate committee and the representation of the petitioner has been rejected in an arbitrary and cavalier manner. He submitted that there is not a single whisper regarding consideration of the clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy of the Indian bank, in the rejection order. After the aforesaid argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the authorities have ignored to consider the provisions of the transfer policy applicable in the case of the present petitioner, therefore, he may be given liberty to move fresh representation before the appellate committee, against the transfer order dated 16th May 2025, and the same may be directed to be considered within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court. Learning counsel for the Bank has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been made while strictly adhering the transfer policy and the clauses 12.1 and 12.2 are not mandatory rather those are directory, as such, no interference is warranted. 3 WRIA No. 11918 of 2025 Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner and his wife both are posted in the same bank and the petitioner has been transferred more than 2000 kms away from the place of his present posting. This court noticed that there is three years' child with his wife. This court has further considered that clauses 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy also provides certain relaxation for consideration of the transfer of any employee, if his spouse is working in any Private Bank or in State Government or Central Government, including the PSUs. When the Court examines the rejection order dated 6th of August 2025 and the representation made by the petitioner, it is apparent that specific ground was taken regarding the provision 12.1 and 12.2 of the transfer policy, but neither the same has been considered nor there is any discussion thereof, in the rejection order. For the forgoing reasons and submissions, the order dated 6th of August 2025 passed by the appellate committee is unsustainable. Resultantly, the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner is given liberty to move fresh representation within a period of three days before the appellate committee of the respondent bank and if such representation is moved, the bank authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within further period of two weeks, while strictly adhering the transfer policy. For the aforesaid period only, the transfer order dated 16 May 2025, shall be given effect to. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. October 8, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench