Public Sector Banks must follow DFS Guidelines on Transfer of Staff, Court orders Stay on Transfers of Bank of Baroda Officers

➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group.

In a major relief to junior and middle management officers of Bank of Baroda, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) has issued an interim order stopping the bank from relieving any officer under its newly implemented Inter-Zonal Transfer (IZT) Policy, which is under legal scrutiny. The court directed that no officer belonging to the petitioner union shall be relieved on May 17, 2025, or any other date, unless the officer has willingly requested to be relieved.

A writ petition was filed by the All India Bank of Baroda Officers Union, affiliated with AIBOA, challenging the bank’s IZT policy introduced on February 1, 2024, and its revised version circulated on April 24, 2025.

Court has clearly said that Public Sector Banks will have to follow the new transfer guidelines issued by DFS, Ministry of Finance. [Click here to read new transfer policy of DFS] [Click here to Download Bank of Baroda Transfer Policy]

Understand Court Case Details in Simple Language

  1. The Inter-Zonal Transfer Policy (called IZT Policy) dated 1st February 2024, made by Bank of Baroda, is being challenged. This policy covers transfer rules for officers from Scale-I (JMG) to Scale-III (MMG).
  2. The petitioner (officers’ union) says that Bank of Baroda is legally required to follow the government’s transfer policy for public sector banks. This policy is issued by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) under Section 8 of the Banking Companies Act, 1970.
  3. They also mentioned two DFS letters:
    • One dated 08.08.2014, about giving relaxation to female staff during transfers.
    • Another dated 03.05.2012, which sets timelines for promotions and transfers.
    • The petitioner says these rules are not properly followed in the IZT Policy dated 01.02.2024. So, they believe transfers done under this policy in June 2024 are wrong and the policy should not be applied.
  4. During the case, the DFS issued a revised transfer policy on 26.11.2024, but the Bank of Baroda did not follow this new policy either.
  5. Instead, the bank issued a new IZT Policy on 24.04.2025, which came into effect from 20.03.2025. According to the petitioner, this new policy still does not match the DFS policy dated 26.11.2024.
  6. Since both policies (old and revised) are being challenged for similar reasons, the petitioner has also questioned the revised policy in this same case. For that, they filed an additional affidavit on 01.05.2025, which the court has accepted.
  7. The union’s lawyer asked the court for temporary protection. He said that while the case is still going on, the bank is trying to relieve officers on 17.05.2025 under the new policy. So, he requested that no officers from the union should be relieved until the case is decided.
  8. The bank’s senior lawyer raised a few objections:
    • He said the union’s case should not be accepted, especially the first demand in their petition.
    • On the main issue, he argued that the bank’s revised policy (from 20.03.2025) does not go against the DFS policy of 26.11.2024.
    • He also said that since the old policy is replaced, the case against the old policy is now irrelevant.
    • However, he agreed that officers are being relieved on 17.05.2025, but only if they have requested it.
  9. After listening to both sides, the court noted:
    • The challenges to both the old and revised IZT policies are based on similar issues.
    • These include the non-compliance of DFS guidelines dated 03.05.2012 and 08.08.2014.
    • So, the case should be heard fully (on merits).
    • The bank’s objections will also be reviewed during the final hearing.
  10. As a temporary relief, the court said:
  1. The case will now be heard for final arguments on 30.05.2025.
  2. The temporary application is now closed.
Exit mobile version