(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2026 passed in W.M.P.No.18111 of 2026 in W.P.No.16860 of 2026, to the extent that the said order continues the interim stay in respect of the women officers who have not submitted their requests/preferences under the longer tenure category and stays the operation of Clause 5.4 of the impugned Transfer Policy with respect to women officers thereby preventing the petitioner Bank from issuing further transfer orders.

Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to aside the interim order dated 02.06.2026 passed in WMP No.18111 of 2026 in WP No. 16860 of 2026 to the extent that the interim order dated 30.04.2026 granted by this Hon’ble Court in WMP No.18111 of 2026 in WP No.16860 of 2026 was modified allowing transfer of 1204 female officer who have already submitted their requests/preferences under the longer tenure category under Clause 5.4 of the impugned Transfer Policy which is against the Central Government transfer guidelines.)

Common Judgment

G. Arul Murugan, J.

1. Both these intra-Court appeals are preferred assailing the interim order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the writ Court, disposing the interim application in W.M.P.No.18111 of 2026 in W.P.No.16860 of 2026.

2. W.A.No.1540 of 2026 is preferred by the Staff Association/first petitioner in the writ petition, challenging the interim order insofar as the benefit is not extended to the transfer of female officers made based on their request/preferences submitted under long tenure category. W.A.No.1529 of 2026 is preferred by the respondents 1 and 2/Bank in the writ petition, aggrieved by the interim order staying the transfer in respect of female officers who have not submitted their request/preference.

3. Since the issues raised in both the appeals arise out of the interim order passed by the writ Court, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the writ petition.

5. The writ petition has been preferred challenging the Transfer Policy for Officers up to MMGS-III issued by the second respondent/ Union Bank of India in Staff Circular No.101885- 2026 dated 16.03.2026, particularly, in respect of Clauses 5.4 and 5.11(iv) as arbitrary and illegal, as it is not in consonance with the mandate issued by the third respondent/Government of India, Ministry of Finance, vide proceedings dated 08.08.2014 and 26.11.2024. The two specific clauses in the Transfer Policy allowing the female officers to be transferred out of a zone due to the long tenure of service and restricting the exemption, are issued without considering the welfare and security of the women officers, who were suggested to be accommodated at a place close to the spouse/family in the guidelines.

6. Mrs. R. Vaigai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, by referring to the two proceedings of the Government of India dated 08.08.2014 and 26.11.2024 submitted that pursuant to several meetings and parliamentary discussions and after considering the hardships and insecurity faced by women officers in public sector banks, the Central Government had advised all public sector banks to frame appropriate policy specifically, incorporating a clause to accommodate both married and unmarried female employees, as far as possible, by ensuring their placement or transfer upon request to locations where their husbands/parents are stationed. The Central Government further directed that in addition to existing administrative criteria, grounds such as marriage, spouse placement, maternity and childcare were also to be suitably incorporated in far away postings. The core endeavor was to post them in the nearby place/region.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the two clauses in the Transfer Policy are not in line with the directives issued by the Government of India where the women officers are sought to be transferred inter-region to far off places from where their spouses/ family members are stationed. Therefore, the circular is not only against the guidelines of the Government of India, but also violative of Article 15(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that though the writ Court had stayed the transfer of the women officers who have not exercised their option, it had erroneously not extended the same benefit to the 1,024 female officers, who had submitted their request/ preferences, without appreciating the fact that these transfers are not actually issued based on their request/preference. Once the period fixed under long tenure transfer category comes into effect, the portal automatically effects transfer process, where the female employee is mandated to give a choice and, therefore, the restriction made on the ground of preference/choice submitted is unsustainable.

9. By placing reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of the first petitioner Association against the first respondent bank dated 28.04.2025 in W.P.No.28838 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that after elaborate discussions, the learned Single Judge had issued a set of directions, specifically, clause (vi) of paragraph 95 directed the first respondent/ bank to ensure the introduction of a policy in conformity with the Central Government guidelines dated 08.08.2014 and 26.11.2024. Although the first respondent bank challenged the said order, the Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 19.06.2025 in C.M.P.No.13839 of 2025 in W.A. No. 1815 of 2025, did not stay this specific portion of the order despite staying the operation of certain other clauses, and had specifically directed that this portion of the order mandating the implementation of the guidelines issued by the Central Government shall be implemented in letter and spirit. As such, the impugned clauses in the policy issued by the first respondent bank are in breach of the orders of this Court and the steps taken by the first respondent bank to effect en masse transfers of the female officers on the ground of long tenure services to far off places is arbitrary and cannot be permitted to proceed.

10. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union Bank of India, at the outset questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that since the issue pertains to transfer in service, it is only open to the individual officers to ventilate the grievance, if any, and the Staff Union cannot plead the cause of the individual service rights and therefore, the writ petition filed by the association itself is not maintainable.

11. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that when transfer is an incident to service and particularly, when the officers are governed by Regulation 47 of the Bank Service Regulations, as well as their appointment orders, which stipulate that their services are transferable to any branch of the bank throughout the Country, the challenge to transfer policy cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the policy itself has been formulated in line with the guidelines issued by the Government of India, balancing officers welfare, customer interest and bank objectives, while addressing the specific requirements and grievances of individual officers.

12. The learned Senior Counsel further by placing reliance on several other clauses in the Transfer Policy submitted that the interests of all the employees, particularly, the women officers, are well protected through special categories and creating cohort zones, whereby every effort has been made to ensure that the women officers are accommodated in their place of choice/preference. He further submitted that though officers become eligible for transfer under the long tenure category after five years of service, still transfers are generally effected only upon completing the maximum nine year tenure. Furthermore, several sub-categories are entirely exempted from transfer and in 2026 alone, 475 female officers were granted exemptions.

13. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that out of 1,519 female officers transferred under the long-tenure category, 1,204 female officers submitted their request/preferences and were accommodated in their specified or adjoining cohort zones. The remaining 315 female officers did not exercise their options and were consequently posted to nearby or secondary cohort zones. However, due to the interim order, these transfers have also been stalled. Even if the interim order is restricted to these 315 female officers, if their transfers are not effected, other officers who exercised their options will also not be in a position to join their respective postings and in effect, the transfers effected are crippled throughout the country.

14. Learned Senior Counsel by placing reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Shami v. Union of India & Others (2026 SCC OnLine Del 1039) submitted that the challenge made to the transfer order by a female officer relying on the circular of the Central Government came to be dismissed on the ground that the circular does not have statutory force as it only states to accommodate ‘as far as possible’ and also on the ground that the transfer can be challenged only in the case of violation of any statutory provision.

15. He further submitted that there is a provision of appeal and the individual officers can approach the appellate authority where their individual grievance would be considered on its own merits and the association cannot plead the cause of individual officers and cripple the entire activity of the bank throughout the country, by challenging the Transfer Policy and obtain interim order for effecting transfer.

16. We gave our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and considered the materials available on record.

17. At the outset, it is to be noted that these appeals arise out of the interim order and still the writ petition which assails two Clauses 5.4 and 5.11(iv) of the Transfer Policy of the first respondent bank in Circular dated 16.03.2026 are pending and yet to be finally decided. We would, therefore, now advert to the facts, for the limited purpose of deciding these appeals against the interim order alone.

18. For better appreciation, the two Clauses 5.4 and 5.11(iv) of the Transfer Policy in Circular dated 16.03.2026 of the first respondent bank, which are put to challenge, are extracted hereunder:

                     “5.4 Transfers on Account of Longer Tenure in a Zone:

                     5.4.1 Vacancies identified in the higher Grade/Scale in the Zone will be first filled in by transferring back the officers who have completed 3 years (or number of years as decided by the Competent Authority) of service/posting out of parent Zone, in a particular scale, on promotion/ longer tenure/ lateral transfer or rural/semi-urban postings or synchronization of grade/scale or otherwise. Such officers will be transferred back to their parent Zones in the order of their date of reporting in the existing Zone where they were transferred on promotion/longer tenure/lateral transfer, rural/semi urban posting etc.

                     5.4.2 An officer shall normally remain posted in a Zone for a minimum period of 5 years and a maximum period of 9 years. Officers shall be liable for inter-zone transfers on account of longer tenure in a Zone once they complete the minimum tenure in a Zone. The Zone wise cut-off date for longer tenure transfers shall be decided by the Competent Authority and every year a list of scale wise tenure-based Seniority List of officers (in officer cadre) shall be declared by Central Office in descending order, which shall be taken into consideration while effecting such tenure based inter-zone transfers as per the decided cut-off of each Zone. Officers who are transferred out of the Zone under this clause shall be placed in another Zone for serving minimum period of 3 years. The female officers who have reached the age of 52 years and male officers who have reached the age of 54 years respectively as on 30th June as of that financial year will not be moved out of Zone under this clause. The Officers who are so transferred outside the Zone would be eligible to be transferred back to their parent Zone after completion of 3 years of service outside their parent Zone, in the order of their date of reporting in the Zone where they are so transferred. Such Officers will be required to apply for transfer requests in HRMS-Union Parivar.

                     5.4.3 Transfer of Specialist officers shall be need based and as per the recommendations received from the concerned Vertical Heads.

                     5.4.4 General Banking Officers who become due for transfer under this criterion may be given an option to apply for 5 preferred Zones with 3 Regions per Zone, for placement upon transfer. As far as possible, Zone may be allotted in the order of preference given by the officer, subject to availability of vacancy. Criterion such as age of the officer/tenure spent in a particular Zone/displacement may be considered while allocating new Zone.

                     However, Bank will explore the possibility of accommodating officers up to Scale-III in the respective linguistic region to the extent possible and it shall be the endeavor of the Bank to avoid far off postings, considering various factors including availability of vacancies, administrative exigencies etc.

                     For this purpose, Bank has identified Cohort of Zones comprising of a group of 3 to 4 nearby zones in similar linguistic areas provided as Table-A to this Policy. While carrying out transfers on longer tenure in case no option is exercised by the officer or non-availability of vacancy in the Zones opted, the officer may be posted to any other Zone within the Cohort in which his/her existing Zone falls, to the extent possible based on the administrative requirement.

                     Similarly, officers who wish to seek exemptions under the criteria listed at clause No. 5.11 (except subpoints i & iv), in case their exemption request is not acceded, and they do not opt for any Zone or their opted Zone has no vacancy, they may be allocated to Zones falling in the Cohort to the extent possible based on the administrative requirement.

                     As far as possible, care be taken by Zonal Offices to post the employees having medical issues at centres where medical facilities are easily available.

                     5.4.5 The tenure of Domestic/Forex/Derivative Dealer will be for maximum of 5 years in front office with total tenure not exceeding 7 years in Treasury department in continuation. The Back-Office staff tenure in Treasury department Shall be for maximum of 5 years. Internal rotation of treasury staff will be carried out every 3 years or more frequently at the discretion of General Manager of the Treasury Vertical.

                     5.4.6 Local Bank Officers (LBOs) will be posted within the selected State for the first 10 years of their service or up to their promotion to SMGS IV, whichever is earlier. Inter Region/ Inter Zone transfers within the same State of LBO will be carried out as per provisions applicable to other general banking officers.

                     Central Office may decide about retention of promoted LBOs within the Zone (with States having more than one Zone) subject to the availability of vacancies.

                     5.11 General Exemptions:

                     While carrying out lateral transfers on Longer Tenure/ transfers on Promotion, the below mentioned grounds may be exempted depending on the gravity/genuineness of circumstances. The applicability of exemption under Longer Tenure and Promotions shall be as follows: