Ankit Dixit v. Indian Bank, Corporate Office No

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Instant petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as order dated

09.08.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2, as contained in annexure no. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue at Lakhimpur Kheri with all consequential benefits including continuity and salary strictly in compliance of the 2016 Act, & Guidelines & Circulars issued thereunder." It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed under physically handicapped quota and he is posted in District Lakhimpur Kheri and his transfer has been made from District Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, i.e., about 2000 kms away. He further submitted that the guidelines issued by the Government of India shall be followed the matter of transfer of persons with benchmark disability/having differently abled children/Children with specified disabilities. Clause 23.3 of the transfer policy issued by the Government of India reads as under:- "23.3. The guidelines issued by Government of India from time-to time will be followed in the transfer of Persons with benchmark differently abled disability/having children/children with specified disabilities." 2 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 He further submits that from the office memorandum dated 31.3.2014, it is evident that the preference in transfer/posting shall be given to the physically disabled who have achieved the desired performance subject to the administrative constraints. Clause H of the said office memorandum reads as under:- "H. Preference in transfer/posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised." Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that being aggrieved with his transfer, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.11022 of 2025 wherein following order was passed on 18.9.2025:- "1. Heard Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Sri Vijay Nandan Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Balbir Singh, Advocate, who has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Court today, which is taken on record, and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 09.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby he has been transferred from the Zonal Office, Lakhimpur Kheri to the Digital Banking Division, Corporate Office, Chennai and has also been relieved.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised various grounds to challenge the impugned transfer order, however the Court is of the view that the said grounds fall in the realm of the grounds to be considered by the respondents at the first instance.

5. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation against the impugned transfer order dated 09.08.2025 before respondent No.3 within a period of one week from today.

6. In case such a representation is made, respondent No.3 shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation, which would be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with copy of this order.

7. Till disposal of representation, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned transfer order.

8. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not submit his representation within the time specified, then 3 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 the benefit of this order shall not be available to him." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that in compliance of the abovenoted order, the order impugned has been passed but the transfer policy of the Bank and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, vide office memorandum dated 31.3.2014, have not been considered. He submitted that the petitioner being physically handicapped has to be considered under the guidelines dated 31.3.2014 and subsequent guidelines issued under clause

23.3. and in light of transfer policy of the Bank. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 as well as the order 9.8.2025 is not only against the order passed by the writ Court but also against the transfer policy of the Bank and the guidelines and instructions issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training time to time. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 10.10.2025 may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that this is the second round of litigation and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition and the Bank has thoroughly considered the issue raised through representation and decided the matter but the petitioner is not joining on his transferred place. Therefore, submission is that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner, who is a disabled person, has been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, i.e., 2000 kms away. The fact remains that the transfer policy under clause 23.3 of the Bank itself says that the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India time to time will be considered in the case of the physically handicapped employee and their wards who are physically handicapped. The office memorandum issued on 31.3.2014 and certain guidelines and instructions issued subsequent thereof with respect to transfer of physically handicapped employee, have not been considered by the authorities of the Bank while passing the impugned order. It is also apparent that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of instituting the Writ-A No.11022 of 2025 wherein the Bank authorities were directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner 4 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 which is raised before bank authorities by way of representation and no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent till the representation is decided. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 22.9.2025, a warning has been given to the petitioner that if he does not join on the transferred place, disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against him whereas the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that though due to miscommunication, the letter was issued to the petitioner but no further action has been taken. Upon considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that the bank authorities while deciding the representation of the petitioner did not consider the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India time to time regarding the transfer of physically handicapped employee, which is also applicable to the bank employees. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is given liberty to move fresh representation while mentioning the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India time to time as well as the policy of the bank, within a period of a week before the respondent no.2 and if such representation is moved that will be decided by the respondent no.2 within further period of two weeks. It is provided that the protection which has already been granted in the Writ- A No.11022 of 2025, shall remain continue till the decision is taken by the bank authorities, on the fresh representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. November 12, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. Instant petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as order dated

09.08.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2, as contained in annexure no. 1 & 2 respectively to this writ petition. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue at Lakhimpur Kheri with all consequential benefits including continuity and salary strictly in compliance of the 2016 Act, & Guidelines & Circulars issued thereunder." It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed under physically handicapped quota and he is posted in District Lakhimpur Kheri and his transfer has been made from District Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, i.e., about 2000 kms away. He further submitted that the guidelines issued by the Government of India shall be followed the matter of transfer of persons with benchmark disability/having differently abled children/Children with specified disabilities. Clause 23.3 of the transfer policy issued by the Government of India reads as under:- "23.3. The guidelines issued by Government of India from time-to time will be followed in the transfer of Persons with benchmark differently abled disability/having children/children with specified disabilities." 2 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 He further submits that from the office memorandum dated 31.3.2014, it is evident that the preference in transfer/posting shall be given to the physically disabled who have achieved the desired performance subject to the administrative constraints. Clause H of the said office memorandum reads as under:- "H. Preference in transfer/posting As far as possible, the persons with disabilities may be exempted from the rotational transfer policy/transfer and be allowed to continue in the same job, where they would have achieved the desired performance. Further, preference in place of posting at the time of transfer/promotion may be given to the persons with disability subject to the administrative constraints. The practice of considering choice of place of posting in case of persons with disabilities may be continued. To the extent feasible, they may be retained in the same job, where their services could be optimally utilised." Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that being aggrieved with his transfer, the petitioner instituted Writ-A No.11022 of 2025 wherein following order was passed on 18.9.2025:- "1. Heard Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Sri Vijay Nandan Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Balbir Singh, Advocate, who has filed memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Court today, which is taken on record, and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6.

2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 09.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby he has been transferred from the Zonal Office, Lakhimpur Kheri to the Digital Banking Division, Corporate Office, Chennai and has also been relieved.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised various grounds to challenge the impugned transfer order, however the Court is of the view that the said grounds fall in the realm of the grounds to be considered by the respondents at the first instance.

5. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation against the impugned transfer order dated 09.08.2025 before respondent No.3 within a period of one week from today.

6. In case such a representation is made, respondent No.3 shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representation, which would be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with copy of this order.

7. Till disposal of representation, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned transfer order.

8. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not submit his representation within the time specified, then 3 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 the benefit of this order shall not be available to him." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that in compliance of the abovenoted order, the order impugned has been passed but the transfer policy of the Bank and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training, vide office memorandum dated 31.3.2014, have not been considered. He submitted that the petitioner being physically handicapped has to be considered under the guidelines dated 31.3.2014 and subsequent guidelines issued under clause

23.3. and in light of transfer policy of the Bank. Therefore, submission is that the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 as well as the order 9.8.2025 is not only against the order passed by the writ Court but also against the transfer policy of the Bank and the guidelines and instructions issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training time to time. Therefore, submission is that the order dated 10.10.2025 may be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that this is the second round of litigation and the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition and the Bank has thoroughly considered the issue raised through representation and decided the matter but the petitioner is not joining on his transferred place. Therefore, submission is that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner, who is a disabled person, has been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Chennai, i.e., 2000 kms away. The fact remains that the transfer policy under clause 23.3 of the Bank itself says that the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India time to time will be considered in the case of the physically handicapped employee and their wards who are physically handicapped. The office memorandum issued on 31.3.2014 and certain guidelines and instructions issued subsequent thereof with respect to transfer of physically handicapped employee, have not been considered by the authorities of the Bank while passing the impugned order. It is also apparent that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of instituting the Writ-A No.11022 of 2025 wherein the Bank authorities were directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner 4 WRIA No. 12769 of 2025 which is raised before bank authorities by way of representation and no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent till the representation is decided. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 22.9.2025, a warning has been given to the petitioner that if he does not join on the transferred place, disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated against him whereas the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that though due to miscommunication, the letter was issued to the petitioner but no further action has been taken. Upon considering the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that the bank authorities while deciding the representation of the petitioner did not consider the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government of India time to time regarding the transfer of physically handicapped employee, which is also applicable to the bank employees. In view of the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 10.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is given liberty to move fresh representation while mentioning the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of India time to time as well as the policy of the bank, within a period of a week before the respondent no.2 and if such representation is moved that will be decided by the respondent no.2 within further period of two weeks. It is provided that the protection which has already been granted in the Writ- A No.11022 of 2025, shall remain continue till the decision is taken by the bank authorities, on the fresh representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. November 12, 2025 Ram Murti (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench