Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Transferring A Nationalised Bank Employee Whose Wife Is Having 100% Disability

Update: 2022-06-11 10:58 GMT
story

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an order transferring an employee of the Central Bank of India from one place to another as it noted that his wife is a permanently disabled person having 100% disability.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan noted that as the husband (employee) is the caregiver of her wife [as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016], therefore, as per the bank's transfer policy, he shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer.

Essentially, in April 2022, the Central Bank of India decided to transfer 163 of its employees in different Zones serving from one place to another. The instant petitioner [Scale-II officer in the bank] was of the employees who were transferred by the bank.

He challenged his transfer order on the ground that he is a 'care-giver' of his wife who is a permanently disabled person and in light of the policy of Transfer of Mainstream/ Specialized Officer in Scale-I, II & III of the Bank read with DOPT's memorandum issued in October 2018, he could not have been transferred as a part of the routine.

In this regard, his counsel argued that being a caregiver of his wife who is permanent disabled, may be given the benefit of his own policy of the Bank vide item No.1.2. according to which any transfer of employee be it routine transfer or rotational transfer may be exempted from such transfer.

In light of these submissions, the Court, at the outset, observed thus:

"Since wife of the petitioner is a permanent disable person having 100% disability and to look-after and take care of her is a sole responsibility of the petitioner, then his status shall come within the meaning of term 'care-giver' as defines under Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2016. On account of disability of wife of the petitioner, she is a person with the 'benchmark disability' and a 'person with disability' as per the meaning of Section 2 (r) & (s) of the Act, 2016. If the Competent Authority of the Bank has transferred the petitioner in compliance of the Transfer Policy/ Guidelines which provides that whosoever has completed 10 years of service at one place shall be transferred from one zone to another zone, then the same policy also clearly indicates vide para 1.2 that a transfer/ posting of a spouse etc. of a person with 'benchmark disability' or long term disability, shall be exempted from routine/ rotational transfer in terms of DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018."

Further, the Court stressed that the rotational transfers are meant for a person who has not been protected by any compassionate or beneficial policy, however, the Court added, if any employee has been protected from any beneficial or compassionate policy, the same may not be ignored unless there is any administrative reason to transfer such person from one zone to another zone.

Consequently, the Court quashed the order transferring him from Lucknow to Cooch Behar, Kolkata, however, since in place of petitioner someone has submitted his joining, the Court directed the opposite parties to accommodate the petitioner at any suitable place at Lucknow Region, be it in a rural areas or urban areas as per the convenience of the authorities.

Case title - Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank Of India, Human Resource Deptt. Thru.General Manager And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3793 of 2022]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 288

Click Here To Read/Download order

Tags:    

Similar News