2025:JHHC:29948 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5128 of 2025 ------ Satish Kumar Singh, aged about 41 years son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Vikashnagar Road No.2A Hesag, PO-Hesag, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Bank of India, through its Chief General Manager SBI Bhawan 16th Floor Madam Camp Road Mumbai, PO & PS, Nariman Point, District-Mumbai, State (Maharashtra). 2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India office situated at RBO-I, Kutchery Chowk, PO, GPO, Ranchi, PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 3. Branch Manager State Bank of India, Tupudana Branch (01625) Tupudana Ancillary Area, PO Hati, PS-Tupudana, District-Ranchi. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ------ 03/ 25th September,2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged his transfer from Tupudana Branch to RBO, Ranchi on the ground that the petitioner is physically challenged person and it is difficult for the petitioner to work in RBO, Ranchi, which is a four stored building and it is difficult for the petitioner to climb the stairs. 3. When the matter was taken up on the last date, this Court requested the counsel to appearing on behalf of Bank to seek instructions. 4. Today, the learned counsel of the State Bank of India submits that the petitioner remained absent for very long period and still he is absent. Neither reported in Tupudana Branch nor in RBO, Ranchi. He submits that once when he attended, he was asked for a day to work in RBO, Ranchi because of exigencies and for which his ID was transferred to RBO, that too for only one day thereafter, he has not reported in Tupudana Branch. He further categorically submits that the petitioner has not been transferred to RBO Ranchi as there is no transfer order. 5. The fact that there is no transfer order is evident from the writ petition itself, as the writ petition does not also contains 2025:JHHC:29948 2 any transfer order. The fact is that the petitioner has remained absent from duty is also not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has not been transferred, this writ petition is pre-mature. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as pre- mature. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 25th September, 2025 Sandeep, cp2