Administrative transfer of bank officials is valid upon completion of minimum tenure despite personal medical exigencies.

The petitioner, a Senior Manager at Punjab and Sind Bank, challenged a transfer order dated 03.03.2026 moving him from the Dehradun Zonal Office to the Bareilly Zonal Office, and a subsequent rejection of his representation dated 02.04.2026

The petitioner had previously been transferred to Dehradun on 22.05.2024 at his own request to facilitate treatment for his father, a cancer patient, and contended that he had not completed a three-year tenure

He further cited his daughter’s Class XII Board Examinations as a ground for remaining in Dehradun

The Bank rejected his representation, noting the transfer was for administrative reasons, the petitioner had completed two years at the Dehradun zone, and the post had already been filled by another officer

1. Whether the transfer order violated the Bank’s Transfer Policy, specifically regarding the minimum tenure and provisions for critical illness

2. Whether the Bank's decision-making process in rejecting the petitioner's representation was arbitrary or failed to consider his personal difficulties

Regulation 47 of the Punjab Sind Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1982, which stipulates that an officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch in India

Clause 10 of the Bank’s Transfer Policy relating to "Transfer On Critical Illness/Life Threatening Disease," noting that it directs the Bank to "endeavor" to accommodate requests but is not mandatory

Clause 5(a) of the Transfer Policy, which prescribes a minimum tenure of only one year at a particular branch

The Court reasoned that transfer is an inherent exigency of service and the employer possesses the right to decide the placement of officers for administrative reasons

Regarding Clause 10 of the Transfer Policy, the Court held that the provision is not mandatory; it only requires an "endeavor" by the Bank

The Court found that the Bank had fulfilled its obligation by concluding that Bareilly offers adequate medical facilities for the petitioner’s father

furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had already completed two years in Dehradun, exceeding the one-year minimum tenure prescribed in Clause 5(a) of the Policy

the Court noted that the ground regarding the daughter’s examinations had become moot as the exams concluded in March/April

The writ petition was dismissed