Sympathetic consideration of medical grounds does not mandate cancellation of an otherwise valid transfer.

The Appellant joined UCO Bank as a Scale-I Officer in 2007 and was promoted to Chief Manager (Scale-IV) with effect from 1 February 2019.

She was diagnosed with hypothyroidism, PCOS and dermographic urticaria in 2018 and subsequently underwent treatment, including availing sabbatical leave from 7 January 2023 to 6 January 2025.

On 13 May 2026, the Bank transferred her from its New Delhi Zonal Office to the Staff Training Centre, Jaipur, and directed her to join by 18 May 2026.

The Appellant challenged the transfer and relieving orders in W.P.(C) 9461/2026, but the writ petition was dismissed.

In LPA 606/2026, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the transfer but permitted her to submit a representation on medical grounds and directed the Bank to consider it sympathetically.

Whether the Bank’s rejection of the Appellant’s medical-ground representation complied with the direction in LPA 606/2026 to consider the request sympathetically?

Whether the legality of the original transfer order could be reopened while challenging the subsequent rejection order?

Whether the Rejection Order was arbitrary, perverse or otherwise amenable to interference in judicial review?

The Court applied the principle that transfer and posting of an employee are primarily matters within the employer’s administrative domain and are ordinarily subject to limited judicial review, particularly where the transfer order has already been judicially upheld.

A direction to consider a representation “sympathetically” requires genuine and reasoned consideration of the employee’s circumstances, but does not compel the authority to accept the representation or cancel the transfer.

Once the competent authority records relevant considerations and its decision is neither arbitrary nor perverse, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment merely because another view is possible.

The Court also applied the principle of finality, holding that a concluded challenge to the transfer could not be indirectly reopened through proceedings concerning the rejection of a later representation.

The Court found that the Bank had complied with the earlier appellate direction.

The Rejection Order considered the Appellant’s medical conditions, her long tenure in the New Delhi Zone, the nature of the Jaipur posting as a non-customer-facing administrative assignment, Jaipur’s proximity to Delhi, the availability of medical facilities and support systems, the opinion of the Bank’s empanelled Medical Officer, and the Bank’s administrative requirements.

The requirement to adopt a sympathetic view meant that these circumstances had to receive due consideration; it did not amount to a direction that the transfer must be cancelled.

The Court further held that the Appellant’s reliance on the Transfer Policy could not reopen the validity of the transfer, which had already been upheld in the earlier proceedings.

Since the Competent Authority’s decision was reasoned and based on relevant considerations, the Court declined to reassess the Appellant’s medical condition or substitute its own view for that of the Bank.

The Appellant failed to establish that the Rejection Order or the Single Judge’s order was arbitrary, perverse or otherwise unlawful.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, all pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the parties in any disciplinary proceedings arising from the Appellant’s alleged absence from duty, which were to be decided independently and in accordance with law.