IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
S. Shaleh @ Shaleh - Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 30371 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 2 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to transfer order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. transfer policy clauses discussed (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. claims of improper procedure in transfer (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. supporting case law presented (Para 13) |
| 5. defendant's counterarguments and conduct (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. defense reliance on transfer policy (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. allegations of mala fides and suppression of facts (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. judicial review limitations on transfers (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. plaintiff's rebuttal and argument extensions (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 10. judicial overview of transfer law (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. established principles governing transfer validity (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. authority and compliance with transfer policy (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 13. distinction of other case precedents (Para 56) |
| 14. judgment and dismissal of writ petition (Para 57) |
| 15. conclusion on judgment and applications (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. The subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition is the memo dated 07.12.2024 as issued by the respondent no.6/Authority addressed to the writ petitioner whereby and whereunder the respondent no.6/authority transferred the writ petitioner from Kolkata Zone to Patna Zone.
2. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner is a Senior Manager in Scale III and pursuant to her release on 08.01.021 from Pune City Zone she joined in the Kolkata Zonal Office of respondent no.1/bank as Senior Manager, Scale III.
3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Majumder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.22 to 39 of the instant writ petition being a copy of memo dated 24.06.2024 enclosing therewith a copy of the Transfer Policy governing the officers in Scale I, II and III as adopted by the Board of Directors of the respondent no.1/bank in a meeting dated 07.06.2024.
4. In course of his submission Mr. Majumder further draws attention of this Court to Clauses 5.4 and 5.5 of the said Transfer Policy under the heading “Inter Zone Transfer”. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder that on careful perusal of Clauses 5.4 and 5.5 of the said Transfer Policy it would reveal that the officers in MNGS-II and III who have completed six years continuous service in a zone would be transferred to another zone and Clause 5.5 of the said Transfer of Policy contemplates that in case of an officer, specialized officer and general officer who has completed normal tenure of three years at one post and in the event suitable post/vacancy is not available in the zone he/she would be transferred in any other zone.
5. Drawing attention to Clause 11 of the said Transfer of Policy it is further submitted by Mr. Majumder that the said Clause 11.1 clearly indicates the competency of an authority who is entitled to transfer an officer in the Scale of I, II and III. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder that from the tabular chart as has been given under Clause 11.1 of the said Transfer Policy contemplates that DGM,HRM is the competent authority to transfer officers in Scale I, II and III. Drawing attention to the order of transfer dated 07.12.2024 a copy of which has been annexed at page no. 40 of the instant writ petition it is further submitted by Mr. Majumder that from the said transfer order/memo dated 07.12.2024 it would reveal that it is the respondent no.6, who is Assistant General Manager, HO- HRM had issued the said transfer order who is much below the rank of DGM, HRM and thus the respondent no.6 is not at all competent to issue the said impugned memo in view of Clause 11.1 of the said Transfer Policy. Drawing attention to paragraph nos.9 and 25 of the instant writ petition it is further submitted by Mr. Majumder that such incapacity of the respondent no.6/authority to transfer the writ petitioner from Kolkata Zone to Patna Zone has been specifically pleaded in paragraph nos.9 to

The authority to transfer employees lies with designated officials per company policy, and such transfers can only be challenged on grounds of mala fides or policy violation.
The Transfer Policy for lady officers allows for transfers within the same zone without invoking the three-year tenure requirement, as this applies only to inter-zonal transfers.
Frequent transfers contravene established transfer policies and may constitute harassment, requiring reconsideration of grievances while emphasizing the importance of a conducive work environment.
Statutory transfer powers under Rule 226 IREC prevail over policy guidelines; no interference with administrative exigency transfers absent mala fides, despite tenure/policy deviations or personal ha....
The court ruled that transfer orders are administrative decisions and can only be interfered with if proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfer policies are directory, not mandatory, and courts will not interfere unless there is clear malafide or statutory violation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.