[2025:RJ-JP:10694-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 98/2025 In S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 982/2025 Bhagat Singh Meena S/o Shri Phool Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Chhan, Post Jiwali, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Gangapur City (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. General Manager, Personal Administration Department/ Human Resource Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3. Senior Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Ridhi Tower, 1St Floor, Sb-57, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya Advocate with Ms. Shristi Mathur Advocate and Mr. Aditya Sharma Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 10/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. Appeal is directed against order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the ground on which the appellant sought adjustment/relaxation from the transfer policy of sending the appellant to another region after completion of required number of posting period at the instant place [2025:RJ-JP:10694-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-98/2025] relates to disability aspect of the appellant’s son who is aged 8 years. Learned counsel would submit that though wife of the appellant is posted in Rajasthan, the son of the appellant needs proper treatment and therapy to over come disability. 4. We find that the appellant, having completed about five years of service in the region where he is presently working, was transferred to Tanjore, Tamil Nadu region vide order dated 12.04.2024. This order was assailed by filing a petition before this Court. Initially interim order was passed. Writ petition eventually came to be disposed off vide order dated 03.12.2024 by which the Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant. However, interim order was continued. Vide order dated 24.12.2024, impugned in the writ petition, appellant’s representation has been rejected stating administrative exigencies. This order was again assailed by filing second round of petition which came to be dismissed by impugned order. 5. It is trite law that in the absence of there being any illegality or mala fides, the order of transfer is not liable to be interfered with by the writ court. However, looking to the hardship and the need of treatment of the appellant’s son who suffers from disability, this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant. Representation submitted by the appellant was again considered. As far as disability ground is concerned, the order passed by authorities rejecting representation records that disability certificate of the son of the appellant was submitted two months after passing of the transfer order. [2025:RJ-JP:10694-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-98/2025] 6. Present appears to be a case where though the transfer of the appellant has become necessary and imminent in administrative exigencies, at the same time, there is plea to adjust him in such a manner that the administrative exigencies and the interest of administration are not jeopardised and the appellant is also in a position to take care of his son who suffers from certain kind of disability. 7. The only way to strike balance between two is that the respondents consider the case of the appellant for transfer to a place where facilities of treatment of his son are available. Only to that extent, in our opinion, some indulgence can be granted. 8. We, therefore, direct the respondents to examine whether at Tanjore Division, where the appellant has been posted, facilities are available for the treatment/therapy which the appellant’s son was getting at Jaipur. If that is there, the transfer may not require any interference. However, if those facilities are not available, the respondents may explore possibility to post the appellant at any other place where facilities for treatment/therapy of son of the appellant are available, to the extent it is possible. 9. Let the decision be taken by the respondents within a period of four weeks. We are not inclined to pass any interim order taking into consideration that the appellant’s wife is already working in the State of Rajasthan. 10. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-ANU/10