Inter-zonal transfer of a pregnant employee requires policy-based consideration of her representation before further action.

The petitioner, an Officer (Scale-I) of the Bank of India, challenged the transfer order dated 21 May 2026 transferring her from the Patna Zone to the Bardhaman Zone.

She alleged that the transfer violated Paragraphs 5.4(a) and 5.1 of the Bank’s Transfer and Rotation Policy for Officers dated 4 January 2025.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Deputy Zonal Manager, by letter dated 5 September 2026, kept the transfer order in abeyance until 31 December 2026 and directed the petitioner to join the Kadamkuan Branch in the interim, which she did.

The petitioner was pregnant and expected to deliver in December 2026 or January 2027.

Whether the petitioner’s transfer from the Patna Zone to the Bardhaman Zone violated Paragraphs 5.4(a) and 5.1 of the Bank’s Transfer and Rotation Policy for Officers dated 4 January 2025.

Whether the Court should interfere with the transfer order in view of the petitioner’s pregnancy and the subsequent decision to keep the transfer in abeyance until 31 December 2026.

Whether the Bank was required to reconsider the petitioner’s representation before taking further action pursuant to the transfer order.

The Court applied the principle that interference with an administrative transfer order is limited, particularly where the employer has subsequently kept the transfer in abeyance and the immediate grievance has been addressed.

The Court also directed the Bank to consider the petitioner’s representation in accordance with Paragraphs 5.4(a) and 5.1 of the Bank’s Transfer and Rotation Policy for Officers dated 4 January 2025 before taking any further action regarding her inter-zonal transfer.

The Court noted that the transfer order had been kept in abeyance until 31 December 2026 and that, during this period, the petitioner had been permitted to work at the Kadamkuan Branch, where she had joined and was performing her duties satisfactorily.

Consequently, the Court found no present basis to quash or interfere with the transfer order.

However, recognising that the petitioner would remain pregnant on 31 December 2026 and that reporting to Bardhaman at that stage could cause prejudice, the Court directed the competent authority to consider her representation under the relevant provisions of the Bank’s transfer policy before implementing any further transfer action.

The Bank was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation concerning her inter-zonal transfer in light of Paragraphs 5.4(a) and 5.1 of the Transfer and Rotation Policy before taking any further action.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these directions.