Administrative requirements cannot be used as a mechanical reason for inhumane Transfers
| ➡️ Click here to Join Whatsapp News Group - Get instant updates of all Banking News |
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the transfer of a UCO Bank manager who was looking after his younger brother, who suffers from Thalassemia and has a 75% permanent disability. The court described the bank’s decision to transfer the manager nearly 1,000 kilometres away as arbitrary and inhumane.
The copy of this court order is given at the end of this article. You can read the article and download the copy of the court order.
A bench headed by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed the order while hearing a petition filed by UCO Bank manager Rahul Agarwal. Rahul had been transferred from the Baneti branch in the Jaipur region to a branch in the Ahmedabad region through an order issued on May 16, 2026.
The court noted that Rahul’s younger brother, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, suffers from Thalassemia and has a 75% permanent disability. His disability certificate was issued by the Rajasthan government’s Medical and Health Department on April 19, 2022.
Ashish is completely dependent on Rahul for his medical treatment, medicines and financial support. A person suffering from Thalassemia may require regular blood transfusions, generally every 15 to 20 days.
In these circumstances, the court said that transferring the person responsible for his care to a distant location, where family support and adequate medical facilities may not be available, would be inhumane. The High Court observed that such a decision also affects the right to health and life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court placed particular emphasis on UCO Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy for 2024-27. The policy contains provisions relating to employees with disabilities and caregivers of persons with disabilities and provides protection from routine or rotational transfers in applicable cases.
The court said the policy was not merely an act of charity but an obligation that the bank was required to follow. It observed that the bank could not formulate such a policy and then act contrary to it while dealing with an employee who falls within its protective provisions.
Rahul had submitted a representation against his transfer, but the bank rejected it on September 8 without giving any convincing reason. The High Court found the rejection to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
During the hearing, UCO Bank argued that Rahul’s transfer was necessary because he had been promoted from Scale-I to Scale-II on April 1, 2026. The bank also pointed out that he had been posted at the Baneti branch since January 2018 and had completed around eight years at the location.
The High Court, however, said that administrative requirements cannot be used as a mechanical reason to defeat the purpose of a protective policy. The court held that the bank was required to consider Rahul’s circumstances in accordance with its own policy before taking a decision on his transfer.
The court therefore set aside the transfer order dated May 16 and directed UCO Bank to allow Rahul to continue working at the Baneti branch. Rahul will remain posted at his present location until the bank reconsider the matter in accordance with the provisions of its Equal Opportunity Policy.
Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
