Good News For Union Bank Employees! Court rules in favor of Staff, Orders Bank to Follow DFS Guidelines in Transfer of Female Staff
| ➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group. |
There is a big good news for Union Bank Employees – especially Female Officers. The Union Bank of India had ordered transfer of Female Staff on account of longer period of stay in a zone. A court case was filed in the High Court of Madras against these transfer orders as these transfers affect the social and family life of employees, especially women employees.
Now, A historic and landmark judgement has been pronounced by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras with regard to the transfer/posting of female officers under longer tenure from one zone to another zone. The court has given direction to the bank to incorporate the Government of India directives dated 08.08.2014 and 26.11.2024 in the transfer policy of the bank with regard to the posting of female officers.
The Court has also given direction to re-transfer those female officers of 2023 & 2024 (lateral) who have represented to the bank as per the orders of the court dated 04.10.2024 to their requested places. The Court has advised Bank to withdraw all disciplinary proceedings initiated against female officers who could not join the new place of posting. The Court has provided an exemption from transfers to officers whose children are in a crucial stage of their educational career.
Court Case: What Court and Judge said?
The Court said that there are various incidents where female employees face serious issues on transfers to distant places. The officers suffer from great physical, mental and physiological hardships.
The Bank must re-examine its transfer policy. It is not for the Court to decide specific measures, but it is certainly within the bank’s responsibility to consider taking steps such as widening the grounds of exemptions from transfers. Permitting individuals to indicate their preferred zone of posting, permitting filing an appeal if the place is not considered, and subsequently permitting approaching the Grievance Redressal Cell are insufficient.
The Judge said that – I wonder why the bank could not put in place a system where individual officers are transferred within the zone and not necessarily out of a zone, even after they worked for nine years in a particular place. I fail to see the rational behind transferring an officer from one corner of the country to another, particularly given the diverse linguistic and cultural differences across States, which can pose significant challenges.
Furthermore, it has been explicitly stated that disciplinary proceedings must be initiated if the employee fails to join within this seven-day period. I am unable to understand the rationale behind this approach. Instead of imposing undue pressure, they could have considered providing a more reasonable timeline for women officers, and at least retain the joining time of twenty days. These are measures that the bank could implement if bank management were to apply their minds and recognize that it is the employees who ultimately contribute to furthering the business of the Bank. It is the quality of service provided which encourages customers to recommend the Bank to other customers. It is not just the services provided by the Bank that matters, but also the manner in which those services are presented and marketed, which are also equally important.
Although the Court cannot dictate the specific nature of a transfer policy, it is evident from the illustrations provided by the petitioners that the current policy has failed. It has not addressed the grievances of the affected individuals, nor has it considered the impact on their family members. In fact, the representations submitted indicate that the employees’ work performance has also been negatively affected. Fostering an environment of discontent among officers and staff in any workplace is not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere. The respondents must seriously examine this issue.
Although it can be argued that the guidelines issued by the Union of India are directory in nature and not mandatory, it stipulates an obligation of the first and second respondents to implement a policy that is in conformity with the guidelines of the Union of India. It is evident that the policy disproportionately affects women, who suffer under the order of transfer. A woman is tied to her family, to her children, to her parents, and to the security of her place of work. She cannot be expected to be moved around frequently without significant hardship. The irregularities in the policy must be understood, and need to be properly addressed.
There had been a direct violation of Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India. Although Article 42 of the Constitution of India is often viewed as a directive principle and is not generally enforceable, it nonetheless puts in place a duty to ensure just and favourable working conditions for women, particularly with respect to maternity protection.
It must also be pointed out that transfers which disregard family, health, or safety concerns are unjust and could violate Article 21, which protects human dignity. Transfers cannot be carried out in a mechanical or burdensome manner. There must be a balance between administrative requirements and the personal safety, family responsibilities and well-being of the employee.
While applying that principle to the first and second respondents in this case, even though they have a transfer policy, it cannot be argued that issues cannot be raised against the policy, if it results in causing considerable hardship and injustice to the person who is seriously affected. The policy can certainly be called in question. It cannot be interfered by the Court in entirety but certainly a direction could be given to revisit the said policy and put in place additional safeguards apart from the safeguards which had been projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
Court Directions
A Counselling Centre must be established to support employees who have completed six years of continuous service in a particular station, informing them of the potential for a transfer upon the completion of nine years.
A Medical Team must be established at each zone to ensure that proper care is provided at any location to which employees are transferred. This would address not only physical and physiological concerns but also mental health, ensuring that no place is considered insecure for a woman and that help is at hand.
The Bank must also encourage home visits during the period when women officers are transferred out of their normal place of residence and grant that particular permission at acceptable intervals.
The Bank must grant a minimum of twenty (20) days period as joining time and as a policy give up its directive to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if an employee does not join within that particular period of twenty (20) days.
The Bank must establish an effective Grievance Redressal Cell, ensuring that the majority of members are women. This Cell should be responsible for examining individual grievances and making genuine efforts to address them, including facilitating transfers within the same zone whenever deemed necessary. The said respondents certainly would not suffer by an officer being transferred within a zone but they would gain much loyalty if that particular policy is adhered to.
The Bank must ensure that any policy they introduce is in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Central Government, as outlined in its directive dated 08.08.2014 and subsequently reiterated on 26.11.2024.
Among the officers who could be exempted from transfer, the bank may also consider including those whose children are at a crucial stage in their educational career.
The bank may engage in direct discussions with those affected by the transfer, ensuring that similar grievances are not raised by any other officer, and that these grievances are properly addressed.
The Judge said – The transfer policy requires to be revisited and grievances will necessarily have to be addressed and redressed by the first and second respondents. I am deeply conscious that though the writ petition is for a Certiorarified Mandamus, to strike down the circulars, this Court has only issued directions and had retained the circulars. The Court has its limitations and cannot step into the shoes of the first and second respondents to dictate their transfer policy. However, the reality of the situation must be understood, as it may work to the disadvantage of the said respondents by fall in standard of application to work ethics. A balance must be struck, and in this context, addressing individual grievances will allow the first and second respondents to achieve the right balance.
The Judge said – Since the petitioners have come to Court with specific instances of woman having expressed their difficulties over orders of transfer suffered by them, I would place a request on the first and second respondents to withdraw any disciplinary proceedings initiated against them for non-joining of the place of transfer and also re-examine and revisit the timeline for joining with a open mind and address requests for re-transfer, if not to a specific place, but within a particular zone, within a reasonable distance of their normal place of residence or normal place of residence of their family or normal place of the educational institution of their children or normal place of hospital where any treatment is undertaken. It is just a humane approach to be adopted by the first and second respondents and I am confident that they would take this particular step. I would also urge the learned Senior Counsels for the first and second respondents to urge the said respondents to take steps to protect them from any allegation of systemic or even indirect discrimination against women employees and ensure compliance with the principles of gender equality as enunciated by the Constitution.
