Transfer on compassionate grounds is not claimable for dependent parents under the applicable policy.

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager with Indian Overseas Bank, was transferred to the Raipur Region on his own request to enable him to care for his aged and ailing parents residing at Baikunthpur.

Shortly thereafter, by posting order dated 24.04.2026, he was posted to Samalwar Branch, District Dantewada, approximately 650 kilometres from Baikunthpur.

He sought transfer to Baikunthpur or a nearby place on compassionate/medical grounds, relying on the Bank’s transfer policy and medical documents relating to his parents.

In an earlier writ petition, the Court permitted him to submit a fresh representation with relevant medical certificates and directed the competent authority to decide it under the applicable transfer policy.

The representation was rejected on 10.08.2026 under the revised Transfer Policy dated 12.03.2025.

The petitioner consequently challenged both the posting order and the rejection of his representation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to transfer on compassionate or medical grounds because of the illness of his dependent parents under Clause 5.1.3 of the Bank’s revised Transfer Policy.

Whether the posting order dated 24.04.2026 and the rejection order dated 10.08.2026 were arbitrary, illegal, or otherwise liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the Court could interfere with the transfer/posting order in the absence of mala fides or violation of a statutory provision.

The Court applied Clause 5.1.3 of the Indian Overseas Bank’s revised Transfer Policy dated 12.03.2025, which permits consideration of compassionate/medical transfer requests, subject to availability of vacancies, principally in cases of terminal or critical illness of the employee, spouse, or dependent children, or other grounds deserving extreme compassion.

The provision does not expressly include illness of dependent parents within the specified grounds.

The Court further relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, which establishes that transfer is an incidence of service; the appropriate authority is ordinarily entitled to decide the place of posting, and courts should not interfere unless the transfer is tainted by mala fides or violates a statutory provision.

The Court held that the petitioner’s representation was considered by the competent authority in accordance with the revised policy applicable on the date of consideration.

Clause 5.1.3 covered terminal or critical illness of the employee, spouse, or dependent children, but did not provide for transfer merely on account of illness of dependent parents.

Accordingly, the petitioner could not claim compassionate or medical transfer as a matter of right.

The Bank had also recorded that Samalwar was near Kirandul, approximately 11 kilometres away, where medical facilities were available, and that the illnesses relied upon were not covered by the policy’s critical-illness provision.

Since no mala fides, statutory violation, or other legally recognised ground for interference was established, the Court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the Bank in a matter of posting.

It held that illness of the petitioner’s dependent parents did not fall within the compassionate/medical transfer grounds expressly contemplated by Clause 5.1.3 of the revised Transfer Policy, and that the transfer order was not shown to be mala fide or contrary to any statutory provision.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the posting order dated 24.04.2026 and consequential rejection order dated 10.08.2026 were left undisturbed.