When a bank employee applies for a promotion process, the bank takes in writing that the employee may be transferred anywhere in India. A chief manager was promoted to the post of AGM but was transferred to another circle despite having a physically disabled child. He approached the court, and the order came in his favour. Court said that the transfer undertaking signed during Bank Promotion has no Legal Validity. Let’s understand the whole case.
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by State Bank of India (SBI) against its employee Rajeev Shukla, who had challenged his transfer from Lucknow to Bareilly after being promoted as Assistant General Manager (AGM).
Why Was the Employee Transferred?
Rajeev Shukla was working as Chief Manager (SMGS-IV) in SBI. He participated in the promotion process for the post of Assistant General Manager (SMGS-V) and was promoted on April 20, 2023. Before promotion, he had signed an undertaking stating that he would have no objection to being posted anywhere in India or abroad if promoted. After his promotion, SBI transferred him from Lucknow to Bareilly on August 2, 2023.
Employee’s Objection to Transfer
Shukla opposed the transfer on the ground that his 17-year-old son suffers from severe autism and he is the primary caregiver. He argued that according to the Government of India policy and SBI’s own circulars, employees who are caregivers of persons with disabilities should normally not be transferred if a vacancy is available at the same location. However, SBI rejected his representation against the transfer on August 29, 2023.
Complaint Before Disability Commissioner
After the rejection of his representation, Shukla filed a complaint before the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. During this period, he joined duty at Bareilly on December 20, 2023. Later, on May 7, 2024, SBI transferred him to another position within Bareilly. He subsequently approached the High Court challenging the transfer orders.
What Did the Single Judge Find?
During the hearing, the Single Judge asked SBI whether any vacancy was available at Lucknow when Shukla was transferred and whether there were any extraordinary circumstances that justified his transfer despite the caregiver policy.
SBI informed the court that vacancies were available at Lucknow. The bank argued that Shukla had already served in Lucknow for about 15 years and had also signed an undertaking agreeing to serve anywhere after promotion. The Judge held that these reasons did not constitute extraordinary circumstances and cancelled the transfer orders.
SBI’s Arguments in Appeal
SBI challenged the Single Judge’s decision before a Division Bench of the High Court. The bank argued that since Shukla had voluntarily signed an undertaking agreeing to serve at any location after promotion, he could not later challenge the transfer. SBI also contended that allowing him to do so would set a wrong precedent for other employees.
High Court’s Observations
The Division Bench noted that there was no dispute regarding the disability of Shukla’s son or his role as the child’s caregiver. The court also observed that SBI’s own circulars provide that an employee who is a caregiver of a disabled dependent should normally not be transferred if a vacancy exists in the same branch, office, town, or city. The court further observed that SBI had admitted that vacancies were available at Lucknow and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to justify the transfer.
Court on the Undertaking
The High Court gave special attention to the undertaking signed by the employee. During the hearing, SBI admitted that even if Shukla had not signed the undertaking, he would still have been eligible for consideration for promotion.
The court held that since the undertaking was not a mandatory eligibility condition for promotion, SBI could not use it to deny the employee the protection available under its caregiver policy. The judges observed that the undertaking could not be enforced in a way that would affect his responsibility towards his disabled child.
Final Decision
The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the earlier order of the Single Judge. It held that SBI had failed to show any valid or extraordinary reason for transferring the employee despite the availability of vacancies at Lucknow and the bank’s policy protecting caregivers of disabled dependents. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed SBI’s appeal and upheld the order cancelling the transfer.
