WP(C)/4437/2026 of SMTI SONIYA UTTAMRAO GAIKWAD Vs THE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS on 17 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 18.08.2026

Heard Mr. F. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent Bank on caveat. [2.] Having regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] It is the case of the petitioner that she is serving as a Staff Officer-II under the respondent Bank and was posted to the Tezpur Branch of the Bank from Srinagar on 25.08.2025. The petitioner’s husband is also working as an Assistant Executive Engineer under the Border Roads Organization and posted in Tezpur. The petitioner’s husband is 70% permanent locomotor disabled and therefore, it was on this ground that the petitioner secured her transfer to Tezpur, where her husband is posted apart from the fact that such common posting is permissible if both the husband and wife are in service. The petitioner and her husband initially were staying in their own accommodation in Tezpur and subsequently, were allotted a quarter. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, she has been transferred to Chariduar and the same was communicated to her vide Communication dated 06.08.2026. Consequent upon the transfer order, the petitioner was also relieved from her posting in Tezpur to join the new place of posting vide Communication dated 10.08.2026. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner’s husband submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office, on 07.08.2026, which was followed by a representation submitted by the petitioner herself to the same authority on 12.08.2026, requesting for review and cancellation of her transfer order. Despite the same, since no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to consider the representation, the petitioners is before this Court. [4.] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner is 70% permanent locomotor disabled and requires assistance from the family members constantly. Apart from the petitioner, there is no other family member living with her husband and therefore, she is required to assist her husband by staying by his side. The learned counsel further submits that as per the transfer policy followed by the Bank except in emergence circumstances, an Officer is to be given a minimum 15(fifteen) days notice in respect of his/her transfer from one station to another so that there is enough time to make adequate preparation for winding up and shifting to the new station. Further, ordinarily transferred to a particular station should not exceed 3(three) years. It can be extended to 5(five) years depending on the circumstances. As for the petitioner, she has not even completed one year in the Tezpur Branch and therefore, her transfer has come at a premature stage. [5.] The learned counsel submits that there is also a provision which provides that Officers who are caregivers of differently abled dependants, including a spouse, are to be exempted from routine exercise of transfer or rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints or that such transfer has to be made where the husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place. This apart, the safety of female officers is also given paramount importance while considering transfers. The learned counsel therefore submits that the respondent Bank has in fact issued the transfer order without taking into account the various provisions in the transfer policy. [6.] The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a location which is 25-30 kms away from Tezpur and which is bound to cause due hardship considering the fact that the petitioner has also undergone treatment for cervical spondylosis and acute lower back pain. In view of the chronic cervical pain, the petitioner has been advised to restrict movement and avoid prolonged sitting, standing, travelling and physical exertion. Therefore her travelling from Tezpur to the place of posting which is at a distance of 25-30 kms would not be advisable. [7.] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner on 10.08.2026 underwent a surgical procedure for excision of a lesion on inner side of her mouth and currently under post-operative care. She has been advised to take 7 to 10 days rest by the doctor. The learned counsel thus submits that the impugned transfer order should be interfered with by this Court having regard to the condition of the petitioner and her husband and as well as the transfer guidelines followed by the Bank. [8.] Per-contra, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel submits that place to which the petitioner has been transferred is hardly 25 kms away and therefore, it is very much in close proximity of where the husband of the petitioner is posted. He submits that the writ petition in fact is premature in view of the fact that petitioner and her husband had submitted representation and according to the Bank’s policy, such representation is to be considered by the constituted committee within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the appeal. Representation having been submitted on 12.08.2026, the 15(fifteen) days time has not lapsed and hence the writ petition is premature. [9.] Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties this Court is of the considered view that since the representation filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending before this Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent Bank authorities to consider and dispose of the representation. [10.] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent Bank to consider and dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 12.08.2026 by taking into account the grievances projected and at the same time the fact that the husband of the petitioner is 70% locomotor disabled and also the transfer policy of the Bank. Such consideration should be done within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the representation i.e., 12.08.2026. In other words, the representation should be considered and dispose of by way of a reasoned and speaking order by 27.08.2026. Needless to say that the decision to be taken should be invariably communicated to the petitioner. Till such decision is taken by the respondent Bank, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant