Back
Transfer of Caregiver 1000 Km Away Violates Article 21:
Court Quashes 's Order, Calls It Mechanical and
The has set aside a transfer order issued by that would have moved the caregiver of a Thalassemia patient over 1,000 kilometers away from his dependent brother, labeling the decision as "" and a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over a single-judge bench, observed that transferring a primary caregiver of a person requiring regular blood transfusions to a distant location, without any consideration of the bank's own Equal Opportunity Policy, was and struck at the right to life and dignity of both the employee and his disabled sibling.
Case Background: A Caregiver's Plea
Rahul Agrawal, a Scale-II officer with , was promoted in and subsequently transferred from the Baneti branch in Jaipur Zone to the Bhadwa branch in Ahmedabad Zone—a distance of roughly 1,000 kilometers. Agrawal's younger brother, Ashish Kumar Agrawal, suffers from Thalassemia with a certified 75% permanent disability. The brother requires blood transfusions every 15 to 20 days and is wholly dependent on Rahul for care, financial support, and medication.
Agrawal's representation against the transfer was rejected by the bank on , prompting him to file a writ petition. He argued that the bank's own Equal Opportunity Policy for , framed under , contains specific clauses that exempt caregivers of persons with disabilities from routine transfers.
The Equal Opportunity Policy: A
Clause 7(v) of the policy states that a person with disability should not be posted to a place far from their residence, and Clause 7(vi) explicitly provides that an employee who is a caregiver of a dependent with a specified disability of at least 40%
"may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subjected to the
."
The bank, however, contended that Agrawal had served in the same zone for eight years and that his transfer was necessitated by his promotion and administrative exigencies. It argued that there was no malice and that the transfer policy for officers required a move after promotion.
Court's Analysis: Policy Violated, Reasoning Absent
The High Court noted that the bank had not disputed the fact of Agrawal's brother's disability or his dependency, both of which were recorded in the bank's own HR records. The court found that the impugned transfer order and the subsequent rejection of the representation were "" that disclosed no application of mind to the provisions of the Special Policy.
"The Special Policy framed by the respondent-Bank is, therefore, not an act of charity but a
. It has a binding force. The respondent-Bank cannot be allowed to frame a policy for public display and then act contrary to it,"
Justice Dhand remarked.
The court further held that the phrase "
" cannot be used as an omnibus exception to render the protective purpose of the policy nugatory. Any departure from the exemption must be based on
"genuine, relevant and demonstrable administrative exigencies."
Key Observations: and Dignity
The bench delivered a powerful observation that resonated throughout the judgment:
"Transferring a care-giver of a person suffering from Thalassemia, who requires blood transfusion on every 15-20 days, to a place 1000 KMs away, where no such facility or family support is available, without any reasonable consideration, is not only but also and violative of , which includes and of both the disabled dependent and the petitioner."
The court also emphasized that a special policy framed under a must prevail over a general transfer policy. Relying on precedents from the and , it underscored that is permissible when a transfer order is passed in violation of statutory rules or a binding policy.
The Decision: Quashed and Remanded with Directions
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Dhand quashed the transfer order dated , and directed the bank to allow Agrawal to continue at his present posting until his case is reconsidered afresh in light of Clauses 7(v) and 7(vi) of the Equal Opportunity Policy.
However, the court clarified that Agrawal cannot claim immunity from all future transfers. The bank retains the liberty to transfer him to any other station—except the originally proposed Ahmedabad posting—provided it passes a reasoned and speaking order that takes into account the medical condition and dependency of his brother.
The judgment serves as a significant reminder that public sector banks and other state entities must act as model employers, and that policies framed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act are not mere window-dressing but enforceable commitments.
