Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/14321/2026 of SHARAN KUMAR Vs CANARA BANK & ORS. on 28 September 2026
Page 1 of 3 $~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010466452026 + W.P.(C) 14321/2026 & CM APPLs. 67130-67131/2026 SHARAN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Vashistath, Mr. Piyush Maan & Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj, Advocates. versus CANARA BANK & ORS.
$~87
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010466452026
+
W.P.(C) 14321/2026 & CM APPLs. 67130-67131/2026
SHARAN KUMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Aditya Vashistath, Mr. Piyush
Maan & Mr. Rishabh Bhardwaj,
Advocates.
versus
CANARA BANK & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms.
Likivi
K.
Jakhalu,
Ms.
Azal
Aekram, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 28.09.2026
1. The petitioner is an officer of respondent No. 1 – Canara Bank [“Bank”]. He has been serving as Manager (Legal), in the Bank’s Bhubaneswar Circle office since December 2022.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails orders dated 02.05.2026, and 11.08.2026, by which he was transferred from Bhubaneswar to Bengaluru.
3. Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. Mr. Aditya Vashistath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s hometown is in Panipat, and he has been transferred from Bhubaneswar to Bengaluru in contravention of Clause III of the Bank’s transfer policy for officers. My attention is also drawn to Clauses VII and XV of the said policy. By virtue of Clause VII, exemption is available to employees on the ground of sickness and other compassionate grounds. According Mr. Vashistath, the petitioner falls within this clause owing to his current ailments. Clause XV also provides for requests by Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe Officers to be considered sympathetically. Being a Schedule Tribe Officer, the petitioner claims the benefit of this clause also.
5. The petitioner’s representation was initially rejected vide order dated 20.05.2026. Against which, the petitioner approached the High Court of Orissa by way of W.P.(C) 19136/2026. The High Court quashed the order dated 20.05.2026, and directed the respondent to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s request. The petitioner’s subsequent representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 11.08.2026.
6. Mr. Gautam submits that Clause XX of the transfer policy provides for an appeal against transfer orders, and the petitioner may be relegated to that remedy.
7. Mr. Vashistath submits that the petitioner will exercise the remedy under Clause XX within a period of one week from today.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid factors, until the appeal is decided, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.
9. It may be noted that in the present petition, a question also arises with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
10. The writ petition is, however, disposed of on the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties, and is without prejudice to any objection in this regard, in the event of any subsequent litigation between the parties.
11. The writ petition, alongwith pending applications, is disposed of in terms of the above. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 “pv”/SM/