| |
CDJ 2026 Ker HC 300
|
| Case No : WP(C) No. 21120 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.NAGARESH |
| Parties : S. Baiju Madhavan Versus State Bank Of India, Represented By By Its Chairman, Mumbai, Maharashtra & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R.K. Muraleedharan, Athira A. Menon, K.V. Harisankar, Advocates. For the Respondents: P. Ramakrishnan, Standing Counsel. |
| Date of Judgment : 20-02-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Comparative Citation:
2026 KER 14510,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Review of Transfer Policy in Public Sector Banks (Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services) (Ext.P3)
2. Catch Words:
- Writ petition
- Transfer policy
- Medical grounds
- Compassionate grounds
- Promotion
- Undertaking
- Arbitrary action
3. Summary:
The petitioner, an ex-serviceman and employee of the State Bank of India, was promoted to Chief Manager (Scale IV) in 2024 but was required to give an undertaking that he would work anywhere in India. He sought a transfer deferment due to his ongoing treatment for Carcinoma Colon Cancer, relying on medical reports and the government’s transfer policy, which considers medical grounds. The bank rejected his request, citing his voluntary undertaking and the administrative exigencies of his promotion. The court held that since the petitioner accepted the promotion with full knowledge of potential transfers, he cannot now avoid transfer on medical grounds.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. The petitioner states that he is an Ex-serviceman who has worked at various places in India including Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner joined service under the State Bank of India as a Single Window Operator (SWO) with effect from 01.10.2009. He was promoted as a Trainee Officer thereafter with effect from 08.12.2012 and as Assistant Manager in the year 2013. As Assistant Manager, the petitioner worked at Chennai. In the year 2016, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Manager and was posted at Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The petitioner states that he was diagnosed with Carcinoma Colon Cancer in 2021 and underwent a surgery removing a portion of his large intestine. The petitioner had to undergo 12 cycles of chemotherapy till August, 2022. The petitioner has to undergo periodical check-ups now.
3. The petitioner states that he was promoted as Chief Manager Scale IV and was posted to Chennai Circle as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.11.2024. The petitioner states that he was permitted to continue at Thiruvananthapuram in the present office as per Ext.P6 communication dated 08.01.2025. The petitioner states that while giving promotion to Scale IV, an undertaking was obtained from the petitioner that he is willing to work at any place in India. Had the petitioner did not give such declaration, the petitioner would not have been promoted to Scale IV, contends the petitioner.
4. The petitioner sought for a transfer to Chennai or Bangalore. But it was not recommended by the Assistant General Manager (HR). The petitioner states that he is under continuous treatment and sonography of abdomen result would show that there is an enlargement of liver. The petitioner is advised to undergo PET Scan at the Gastroenterology Department of Cosmopolitan Hospital.
5. The petitioner submitted Ext.P13 request for deferring the inter-circle transfer. Ext.P13 request was supported by all medical reports and was submitted through proper channel. The petitioner’s wife is a State Government employee working as Head Clerk in Government Homeo Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner requires care of his wife. The respondents are trying to issue relieving order to transfer the petitioner out of Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner’s request was rejected as per Ext.P14 order dated 09.10.2025 of the 2nd respondent.
6. The petitioner points out that as per Ext.P3, Review of Transfer Policy in Public Sector Banks has been framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services. In addition to the available grounds of transfer, the grounds of marriage / spouse / medical / maternity / child care / far away postings, also will be suitably incorporated. In case of spouse working in Central / State Governments, an endeavour to post them in the same place / region or nearby place / region be made. The petitioner is suffering from Carcinoma Colon Cancer. The petitioner requires continued specialty treatment, which he is availing from Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner requires speciliased diet. In such circumstances, the petitioner’s transfer out of Kerala, is highly arbitrary and violative of the policy guidelines issued by the Government of India. The respondents are compellable to retain the petitioner in Kerala, contends the petitioner.
7. The respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The respondents stated that the petitioner had accepted his promotion based on Ext.R1(a), understanding the fact that he could be transferred anywhere in India as per administrative exigencies. The Bank took note of the communication dated 26.11.2024 issued by the Government of India and has formulated its transfer policy.
8. As per the policy of the respondents, an Officer requiring medical assistance on account of critical illness like cancer can be considered by the Bank at its sole discretion on compassionate grounds independent of the normal rules of transfer. The petitioner on the urge of promotion to Scale IV gave an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner is willing to work anywhere in India. The petitioner was initially posted in Maharashtra Circle. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation requesting to post him in Chennai or Bangalore Circle taking into consideration his medical condition. It is acceding to the request made by the petitioner that the petitioner was posted in Chennai.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
10. The petitioner was diagnosed with Carcinoma Colon Cancer in 2021 and underwent surgery. The petitioner states that he had to undergo 12 Cycles of Chemotherapy till August, 2022. After promotion to the post of Chief Manager (Scale IV), the petitioner was posted to Chennai Circle as per Ext.P5 order dated 28.11.2024. The petitioner sought for differing the inter-circle transfer. The petitioner's request was rejected as per Ext.P14 order. The petitioner seeks to retain him in the present Station under Thiruvananthapuram Circle.
11. I find that while offering promotion to the Scale IV, the petitioner was required to give an undertaking to the effect that he is willing to work at any place in India. The petitioner was being offered promotion to a superior post of Chief Manager (Scale IV). A person being promoted as Chief Manager should be willing to work at any place in India. It was knowing that the petitioner is likely to be transferred out that the petitioner has accepted the promotion and that too after giving an undertaking on his willingness.
12. If the petitioner had any issue in going to other Stations due to his physical conditions, the petitioner had the option to decline promotion. The petitioner did not do so. There may be other Officers who also have health or family problem to move out to other Circles and who have therefore declined promotion. Knowing that the petitioner is likely to be transferred out, the petitioner has accepted the promotion giving an undertaking to work at any place in India. After accepting the promotion and after giving an undertaking, the petitioner cannot now turn around and project his medical condition as an excuse to wriggle out of transfer liability. The writ petition is therefore without any merit.
The writ petition is hence dismissed.
|
| |
