Transfer decisions by employers are largely discretionary, and personal inconveniences do not provide grounds for judicial interference unless statutory violations are evident.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J The present intra-Court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenges the judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21120/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, having been promoted as Chief Manager in the respondent Bank, was transferred and posted to the Chennai as per Ext. P5 order dated 28.11.2024. At the time of granting the promotion, he had given an undertaking stating that he was willing to work at any place in India. Had the appellant not given such a declaration, he would not have been promoted to the post of Chief Manager, Scale IV.

2.1 The appellant was diagnosed with carcinoma colon cancer in

2021 and underwent surgery for removal of a portion of his large intestine. Thereafter, he has been under continuous medical treatment. A sonography of the abdomen revealed enlargement of the liver. The appellant has been advised to undergo a PET scan at the Gastroenterology Department of Cosmopolitan Hospital.

2.2 The appellant submitted Ext. P13, requesting deferment of the inter-circle transfer, along with supporting medical documents. The wife of the appellant is a State Government employee working as Head Clerk at the Government Homoeo Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant requires the care and support of his wife. However, his representation was rejected as per Ext. P14 order dated 09.10.2025.

2.3 The required medical treatment is available in Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, he is not in a position to leave Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, as per the transfer policy contained in Ext. P4, Clause 7.2 (General Guidelines), sub-clause (viii) provides as follows:

“(viii) Transfer on Compassionate Grounds: The Bank, at its sole discretion, may consider transfer application cases, on compassionate grounds independent of the transfer process applicable in the above clauses.

a) This will include cases where the parent/s, spouse, children of the officer, any dependent family member, or the officer himself/herself need medical assistance on account of Terminal/critical illness like Cancer, Paralytic Stroke, Renal/Liver Failure, Thalassemia, Parkinson's disease, Epilepsy, CABG or any other medical condition as deemed lit by Bank Medical Officer, thereby requiring transfer to a particular location having better medical facilities.

b) Bank may consider other requests on Compassionate grounds depending on the gravity of circumstances on case-to-case basis.

c) The officers in such cases have to route their application through the concerned LHO/ respective Vertical, after satisfaction of the contents therein, Circle CGM/CGM of the vertical shall recommend or otherwise refer the case to the Competent Authority. Based on the merits of the case, the decision to transfer an officer will be taken and it will be at the sole discretion of the Competent Authority. Officers shall be required to submit the necessary medical records and supporting documents at the time of submission of request. The respective LHO/Vertical will meticulously scrutinize the documents and recommend accordingly.”

3.1 The learned Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant’s cancer is presently at an advanced stage. Therefore, as per Clause 7.2(viii), the respondents are obliged to consider his case and post him to a location with better medical facilities.

3.2 The learned counsel further pointed out that similarly situated employees h