HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 245 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard. 3. This is an appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 challenging judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Writ-A No.6280 of 2024. 4. This matter was heard on 27.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 10.07.2025, 27.08.2025, 16.09.2025, 23.09.2025 & 15.10.2025 and certain queries were made by us in our order dated 15.10.2025. Essentially, there is a challenge to the transfer order by which the appellant has been transferred from Bareilly to Mumbai office of the State Bank of India. Today, it has been informed that so far as Anurag Srivastava is concerned, he had initially been transferred from Bareilly center to Lucknow centre i.e. within the Lucknow Circle vide order dated 17.06.2017 and remained there till he was transferred back to Bareilly centre on 16.07.2024, therefore, at one centre, he has not stayed more than seven years. The contention of the appellant to the contrary is untenable. It is further stated that writ petition was absolutely silent about Anurag Srivastava and his name has been dragged into the proceedings for the first time at the appellate stage that too without impleading him. However, the contention of the appellant's counsel is that as per para 5.2 of the transfer policy Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Anand Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Srivastava Shagun Kumar Roopak .....Appellant(s) Chief General Manager S.B.I. Local Head Office Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) pertaining to System Officer posted outside Mumbai Centre, firstly, the maximum period in a particular position would be of five years at one desk which is not the provision involved herein. Sub-clause (2) of the said provision says maximum centre stay would be seven years which the appellant- petitioner had not completed. The provision further goes on to state that subject to churning as mentioned above which is a reference to churning mentioned in the context of System Officer posted in GITC/ CC/ other CC establishments at Mumbai, which has a provision of churning of System Officers having the highest centre stay (five years or more) as per the data provided by respective circles/ establishments/ Verticals etc. The contention is that appellant-petitioner did not have the highest centre stay (five years or more) at Bareilly Centre. 5. The question is whether there was anybody having a higher centre stay than the appellant-petitioner who was not transferred. Answering this question, Sri Tewari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State Bank of India says that as per para 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 30.08.2025, the transfer in question was not affected as per para 5.2 of the Transfer Policy rather as many as 123 System Officers were transferred on administrative grounds due to centralization of information technologies related work at Global Information Technology Centre and Information Security Department at Corporate Centre at Mumbai of the Bank, a decision for which was taken vide Note dated 04.06.2024 duly approved by the competent authority. The churning as envisaged under Clause 5.2 of the Transfer Policy was not done in the instant case and when an administrative decision is taken that 15-18 system officers, depending upon the size of the Circle at Information Technology Support (ITS) Department of Local Head Offices of the Bank would be sufficient for technical support for various IT operations at the Circles, a memo dated 23.02.2024 was issued and subsequently, the Note dated 04.06.2024 transferring 123 System Officers was approved by the competent authority. It is informed that the appellant and another person, namely, Sri Rajesh Verma were the only two System Officers/ Specialist Officers posted at the Bareilly Centre and both were transferred. Therefore, there is no discrimination. Sri Anurag Srivastava, of course, was not covered under the said decision. Reference has been made by learned counsel for SPLA No. 245 of 2024 2 the Bank to Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy, according to which, notwithstanding the provisions contained in the policy, the SBI Officers' Services Rule 47, which states that every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or any other organization in India, shall be applicable in view of the exigencies of the service. It is said that this Clause had been taken recourse to. The transfer, according to the Bank, has been done in the exigencies of service and not as per Clause 5.2 of the Transfer Policy. He has also referred to the Note to Clause 5.2, according to which, the centre stay mentioned therein does not preclude the Bank's right to transfer any officer at any time on administrative grounds. 6. We have perused the response of learned counsel for the appellant to the aforesaid paras 4 and 5 etc of the affidavit dated 30.08.2025 of the Bank. We accept the explanation offered by the bank for transferring the appellant. Having considered the matter and in view of what has been stated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, no further scrutiny/ inquiry is required in this appeal. The judgment of learned Single Judge does not require interference in view of the reasons given hereinabove. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. November 4, 2025 Shanu/- SPLA No. 245 of 2024 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench