Divya Jain v. State Bank of India & Ors.

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing and setting aside letter dated 06.10.2022 as also seeking a direction to the Respondents to transfer the Petitioner to Delhi on compassionate ground,due to the ill health of her father.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner, who is currently working as Junior Management Grade Scale - I Officer with the Respondent Bank/State Bank of India that father of the Petitioner is suffering from Parkinson’s disease and requires constant care and attention. Petitioner has been posted to Bhagalpur Branch,Patna where shewas required to join immediately.However,in view of the medical condition of her father,Petitioner requested for being transferred and posted to Delhi Circle from Patna. Petitioner also submitted a detailed representation on 22.10.2022,requestingfor transfer on compassionate grounds but no relief has been granted to her, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Court.

3. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.11.2022,copy of which has been placed on record and the rejection was duly communicated to the Petitioner by an email dated 08.11.2022.

4. It is further submitted that thecase of the Petitioner has been considered but her request cannot be acceded to, in view of the policy of transferembodied in the SBI Circular dated 26.07.2021, pertaining to inter-circle transfers. It is submittedthat application for inter-circle transferon groundof extreme compassion is generallyconsidered for serious illness of parents only if the applicant is the sole child and parents are unableto re-locate to his/her place of posting for justifiable reasons. In the case of the Petitioner it is an admitted position that Petitioner is not the sole child of her parents as she has a brother, which is evident from the particulars disclosed by the Petitioner pertaining to her family details andhe is an earning member and in a position to look after Petitioner’sfather.It is urged that Courts can only interfere in matters of transferif the transfer is in violation of a policy or mala fide, which is not the case set up by the Petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for theparties.

6. Relevant part of the circular dated 26.07.2021, pertaining to transfer on extreme compassionate ground relied upon by the Respondent Bank is as under:-

7. There is substance in the contention of the Respondent Bank that the transfer policy envisagestransfer on the ground of illness of the parents only if the applicant is the sole child andparentsare unable to relocate to his/herplace of posting. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is not thesole child and she has a brother, who is an earningmember and looking after the father.It is a settled law that in judicial review, Courts do not interfere in transfers made by the employer unless the sameis contrary to the transfer policy or is mala fide and as rightly pointed by learned counsel for the Respondents neither of thetwo grounds have been set up by the Petitioner [Ref. Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659].

8. At this stage, Mr. Kapur voluntarily offers that in case Petitioner desires to be transferred to any place within Patna, she may apply for the same andsubject to availability her request would be considered.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urgesthe Court to permit the Petitioner to makeanother comprehensiverepresentation annexingthe medical documents as well as for a direction to Respondent Bank to consider the samesympathetically.

10. It is open to the Petitioner to make anotherrepresentation along with the medical documents on theportal of theBank,after she joins her current place of posting. Respondent Bank is at liberty to consider the representation,in accordancewith law.

11. Petition is disposed of along with pending application, in the aforesaid terms.

JYOTI SINGH, J DECEMBER 05, 2022