The court upheld the bank's transfer policy requiring applicants to be sole children for parental illness transfers, emphasizing limited grounds for judicial review over employer's transfer decisions.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (ORAL)

1. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing and setting aside letter dated 06.10.2022 as also seeking a direction to the Respondents to transfer the Petitioner to Delhi on compassionate ground, due to the ill health of her father.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner, who is currently working as Junior Management Grade Scale - I Officer with the Respondent Bank/State Bank of India that father of the Petitioner is suffering from Parkinson's disease and requires constant care and attention. Petitioner has been posted to Bhagalpur Branch, Patna where she was required to join immediately. However, in view of the medical condition of her father, Petitioner requested for being transferred and posted to Delhi Circle from Patna. Petitioner also submitted a detailed representation on 22.10.2022, requesting for transfer on compassionate grounds but no relief has been granted to her, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Court.

3. Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.11.2022, copy of which has been placed on record and the rejection was duly communicated to the Petitioner by an email dated 08.11.2022.

4. It is further submitted that the case of the Petitioner has been considered but her request cannot be acceded to, in view of the policy of transfer embodied in the SBI Circular dated 26.07.2021, pertaining to inter-circle transfers. It is submitted that application for inter-circle transfer on ground of extreme compassion is generally considered for serious illness of parents only if the applicant is the sole child and parents are unable to re-locate to his/her place of posting for justifiable reasons. In the case of the Petitioner it is an admitted position that Petitioner is not the sole child of her parents as she has a brother, which is evident from the particulars disclosed by the Petitioner pertaining to her family details and he is an earning member and in a position to look after Petitioner's father. It is urged that Courts can only interfere in matters of transfer if the transfer is in violation of a policy or mala fide, which is not the case set up by the Petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Relevant part of the circular dated 26.07.2021, pertaining to transfer on extreme compassionate ground relied upon by the Respondent Bank is as under:

"1. The application of ICT under extreme compassionate ground can generally be considered for serious illness of self, spouse, parents (only if the applicant is the sole child and parents are unable to relocate to his/her place of posting for justifiable reasons), dependent children & sibling, and for employees who comes under PWD category. Any such personal/family circumstances, which warrants/necessitates transfer of the Officer may also be considered under Extreme Compassion subject to satisfactory verification of the same by recommending authority. Extreme Compassion cases on medical grounds should Invariably be referred to the Bank's doctor at respective LHO for their remarks."

7. There is substance in the contention of the Respondent Bank that the transfer policy envisages transfer on the ground of illness of the parents only if the applicant is the sole child and parents are unable to relocate to his/her place of posting. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is not the sole child and she has a brother, who is an earning member and looking after the father. It is a settled law that in judicial review, Courts do not interfere in transfers made by the employer unless the same is cont