HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11900 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Under challenge is the rejection of the representation vide orders dated 14.07.2025 and 28.07.2025, passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively. Further, the rejection order dated 12.09.2025 has already been assailed vide the present petition, which was passed on a request made by the petitioner on the portal of the bank i.e. Sanjeevani. 3. The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, initially moved an application for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad to Lucknow where her husband is stationed. From the rejection order dated 14.07.2025 and 28.07.2025, it is apparent that the authority, has not considered the transfer policy which is applicable to the transfer of the petitioner-employee. He submitted that transfer policy, which was promulgated in the month of June, 2025, it is evident that there is certain provision for consideration of the transfer of such employees whose dependent namely daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister, have the specified disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Right of the Persons with Disability Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as Act, 2016). He has drawn attention of the court towards clause 4.4 and 4.5.2 of the said policy which read as under:- " 4.4: Female Officers: In the matter of Intra-Circle transfer request on spouse ground or Intra- Circle transfer request from unmarried female officers, the application/request will be considered from time to time while keeping in view the administrative requirements of the Bank, depending upon the Bank's circulars issued from time to time. As such, the policy for • Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aftab Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alok Saxena Archana Singh .....Petitioner(s) Chief General Manager State Bank Of India Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) transfer/posting of lady officers within Circle should, inter-alia, be guided by the following principles: (a) Efforts must be made to accommodate, as far as possible, transfer/posting of married female employee, on her request, at a place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place. • (b) If both husband and wife are working in our Bank, as far as possible, they may be posted at the same Centre, provided such postings do not come in conflict with extant instructions of Transfer Policy. • (c) Efforts must be made to accommodate, as far as possible, transfer/postng of unmarried female employee, on her request, at a place where her parents are stationed or as near as possible to that place. • (d) Endeavouor shall be made that women employees be transferred as far as possible to nearby places/region/module, keeping in view the administrative requirements of the Bank. • 4.5.2: Transfer/Posting of officers who are care givers of disabled dependants: Transfer/posting of officer, who is a care giver to disabled dependent, shall be governed by the instructions issued by the Bank in this regard from time to time. • In terms of the instructions issued by the Bank in compliance of DFS guidelines issued vide letter no. 3/4/2017- Welfare dated 31.09.2019, an employee who is a care giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a person with Benchmark Disability, as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints." • 4. He further submitted that after the promulgation of the transfer policy, the petitioner applied for her transfer on the bank portal i.e. Sanjeevani, but the same has also been rejected vide order dated 12.09.2025. 5. He further submitted that the rejection order reveals that the authorities have ignored to consider the particular provision provided in the transfer policy for the employees whose dependents are suffering with specified disabilities. He has further pointed out that once the said order was passed, the petitioner WRIA No. 11900 of 2025 2 applied for leave and that was granted but with such a condition that it will break the service of the petitioner which is not acceptable to the petitioner. 6. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the orders passed by the authorities impugned in this petitioner are without considering the policy 4.4 and 4.5.2, therefore, the same is unsustainable, thus, he confined his prayer to the extent that the order impugned may be quashed and the authorities may be directed to consider and decide the request of the petitioner for her transfer, from Allahabad to Lucknow, afresh. 7. Mr. Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that though the provision of the policy is not mentioned in the order but the policy as such has been considered. He further submitted that the request of the petitioner has thoroughly been considered in compliance of the transfer policy, therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner is a woman and she is working with the respondent bank. It is apparent from the pleadings that the son of the petitioner, who is about 4 1/2 years of age, is suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder and in respect of the same, a disability certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, which has been appended as Annexure No. 17 along with the petition. 9. When this court examines the transfer policy, it is apparent from the clause 4.4 as well as Clause 4.5.2 of the policy that an employee who is a care giver of the dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with specified disabilities, which are defined under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016, shall be exempted from the routine transfer/rotational transfer, subject to the administrative constraint and further, it is provided in Clause 4.4(a) that effort must be made to accommodate, as far as possible, transfer/posting of married employee, on her request, at the place, where her husband is stationed or at nearby place, as possible. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner, vide his contention as well as records appended along with the writ petition, succeeds to substantiate that the son of the petitioner is suffering with the disability, which comes under the category of the specified disabilities provided under Section 2(r) of the Act, 2016. This court also finds that the provision which is prescribed under Clause 4.4 of the policy, which was promulgated, in the year 2025, has also not been considered as there is no discussion or finding with respect to the same. WRIA No. 11900 of 2025 3 11. Consequently, the rejection orders dated 14.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and 12.09.2025, impugned herein in this writ petition are hereby quashed. 12. The petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation while raising her claim, mentioning the provisions of the transfer policy, before the opposite party no. 2 within a period of one week and if such a representation is moved, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a further period of three weeks, in accordance with law, particularly including the law applicable at the time being enforced. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of both the parties. October 9, 2025 DiVYa WRIA No. 11900 of 2025 4 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench