Bombay High Court Reprimands Bank For Denying Employee's Request To Reverse Promotion To Care For Visually Impaired Child, Imposes ₹25K Cost

Remarking that the bank's approach lacked 'human sensitivity', a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe said it was making an 'exception' to allow the petitioner to return to her original post in Mumbai.

The petitioner was working as a Clerk at the Mumbai branch of the bank. She was then promoted to the post of Assistant Manager in Chennai. However, the petitioner was ready to give up her promotion if she was permitted to work in Mumbai, so as to cater to her 95% visually impaired child aged 10 years.

The Court noted that while the bank initially made a statement before the court that they would consider the petitioner's request, they later changed their stance.

The Court noted the Bank counsel's submission that the bank did not have any policy to enable them to consider the request of the petitioner. It noted that the counsel insisted that as the petitioner appeared for multiple examinations to clear the promotion, she could not refuse the promotion.

The counsel also stated that being promoted to Chennai, a metro city, she could take care of her child well. Unimpressed with this stance, the Court remarked that the petitioner being a mother can take a better decision for her own child rather than relying upon the bank's judgment that Chennai would be better suited to her child.

It said, “As a mother she understand the difficulties posed by her 10 year old child, and is conscious of the arduous task in shifting him to new environment and probably her apprehension is that he may be putting him in a onerous scenario, if he is uprooted from the present place and shifted to a new place in new surroundings.”

The Court further stated that the bank did not specify any administrative difficulty in acceding to the petitioner's request, as the bank could find another employee to fill up the promotional post.

“We are not told about any administrative difficulty in permitting to do so, as the bank would find some other employee to fill up the said promotional post of the Assistant Manager in Chennai, but a child may not find a substitute for mother.”

On the bank's argument that it does not have any policy to reverse the promotion and let the petitioner continue in Mumbai, the Court commented that this stance reflected a “lack of sympathetic approach” on the part of the bank.

Noting that the petitioner had already joined Chennai and was facing difficulties in catering to her child, the Court said that it was making an exception and allowing the petitioner's request.

It also noted that even the petitioner was suffering from an ailment concerning the pituitary gland. It stated that if the petitioner deems herself to be fit enough to apply for a promotional post in future, she could avail the opportunity.

“This we are making as an exception, and we see no hesitancy in holding that an employee, who is the focal point of any administration, deserves empathy, specifically, in light of facts which are placed before us, being even the Petitioner herself is suffering from an ailment, which has been projected before us through various medical certificates reflecting a small area in the left half of pituitary gland, with relatively delayed enhancement and which has been opined to represent a 'micro adenoma' advising biochemical correlation and follow up.”

The Court thus set aside the bank's communication refusing the petitioner's request to reverse her promotion and reinstate her back in Mumbai. It said that the petitioner should be permitted to continue to work as a Clerk in the Mumbai branch.

Furthermore, noting that the bank's approach was unsympathetic, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25000 on the bank, to be paid to the National Association for the Blind.

Case title: Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya vs. Indian Overseas Bank (Writ Petition No.14419 Of 2024)