Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010181642026 2026:GAU-AS:12633 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4630/2026 SMTI SONIYA UTTAMRAO GAIKWAD PERMANENT RESIDENT OF ARANGAON ROAD, NEAR V RDE, VIDYANAGAR, ARANGAON, MEHERABAD, AHMADNAGAR, NAGAR, MAHARASHTRA-414006, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTER NO. C-1/1 TYPE IV, VARTAK VIHAR, FAMILY QUARTER, C/O 99 APO, EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP GREF, B.P. TINALI, TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784151 VERSUS THE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT STAR HOUSE, C-5, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA. 2:THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPETENT AUTHORITY GUWAHATI ZONE H. NO. 197 JONALI R.G. BARUAH ROAD P.O. ZOO ROAD GUWAHATI-781024 DISTRICT-KAMRUP (M) ASSAM. 3:THE ZONAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA GUWAHATI ZONE H NO 197 Page No.# 2/7 JONALI R G BARUAH ROAD P.O. ZOO ROAD GUWAHATI PIN-781024 DISTRICT -KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF INDIA TEZPUR BRANCH N.T. ROAD KAMAR CHUBURI P.O. TEZPUR- 784001 DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MD F FARIDI, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A GANGULY(R1TO4), MR. A DHANUKA(R1TO4) B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. F. Faridi, Advocate. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. A. Ganguli, Advocate-Bank of India. Date on which judgment is : NA. Reserved. Date of pronouncement of : 02.09.2026. Judgment. Whether the pronouncement : NA. is of the operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment : Yes. has been pronounced? Page No.# 3/7 O R D E R Heard Mr. F. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri A. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. 2. This writ petition has been instituted against the decision dated 20.08.2026, communicated to the petitioner via email whereby, the request for cancellation/ review of the transfer of the petitioner from Tezpur Branch to Chariduar Branch has been rejected. 3. Having considered that issue involved in this writ petition and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. 4. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with WP(C)/4437/2026 against his transfer and posting order dated 06.08.2026 whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Tezpur Branch to Chariduar Branch as Branch Manager of the Bank of India. 5. Brief facts noted in the writ petition (supra) is that the petitioner is serving as a Staff Officer-II under the respondent Bank and was posted to the Tezpur Branch of the Bank from Srinagar on 25.08.2025. The petitioner’s husband is also working as an Assistant Executive Engineer under the Border Roads Organization and posted in Tezpur. The petitioner’s husband is 70% permanent locomotor disabled and therefore, it was on this ground that the petitioner secured her transfer to Tezpur, where her husband is posted apart from the fact that such common posting is permissible if both the husband and wife are in service. The petitioner and her husband initially were staying in their own accommodation in Tezpur and subsequently, were allotted a Page No.# 4/7 quarter. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, she has been transferred to Chariduar and the same was communicated to her vide Communication dated 06.08.2026. Consequent upon the transfer order, the petitioner was also relieved from her posting in Tezpur to join the new place of posting vide Communication dated 10.08.2026. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner’s husband submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager Bank of India, Guwahati Zonal Office, on 07.08.2026, which was followed by a representation submitted by the petitioner herself to the same authority on 12.08.2026, requesting for review and cancellation of her transfer order. Despite the same, no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to consider the representation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner is 70% permanent locomotor disabled and requires assistance from the family members constantly. Apart from the petitioner, there is no other family member living with her husband and therefore, she is required to assist her husband by staying by his side. The learned counsel further submits that as per the transfer policy followed by the Bank except in emergence circumstances, an Officer is to be given a minimum 15 (fifteen) days notice in respect of his/her transfer from one station to another so that there is enough time to make adequate preparation for winding up and shifting to the new station. Further, ordinarily transferred to a particular station should not exceed 3(three) years. It can be extended to 5(five) years depending on the circumstances. As for the petitioner, she has not even completed one year in the Tezpur Branch and therefore, her transfer has come at a premature stage. 7. The learned counsel submits that there is also a provision which provides that Officers who are caregivers of differently abled dependants, including a spouse, are to be exempted from routine exercise of transfer or rotational transfer subject to administrative constraints or that such transfer has to be made where the husband is Page No.# 5/7 stationed or as near as possible to that place. This apart, the safety of female officers is also given paramount importance while considering transfers. The learned counsel therefore submits that the respondent Bank has in fact issued the transfer order without taking into account the various provisions in the transfer policy. 8. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred to a location which is 25-30 kms away from Tezpur and which is bound to cause due hardship considering the fact that the petitioner has also undergone treatment for cervical spondylosis and acute lower back pain. In view of the chronic cervical pain, the petitioner has been advised to restrict movement and avoid prolonged sitting, standing, travelling and physical exertion. Therefore her travelling from Tezpur to the place of posting which is at a distance of 25-30 kms would not be advisable. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner on 10.08.2026 underwent a surgical procedure for excision of a lesion on inner side of her mouth and currently under post-operative care. She has been advised to take 7 to 10 days rest by the doctor. 9. This Court, after consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perusal of the records, has disposed of the writ petition (supra) as under: “[9.] Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties this Court is of the considered view that since the representation filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and therefore, instead of keeping the writ petition pending before this Court, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent Bank authorities to consider and dispose of the representation. [10.] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent Bank to consider and dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 12.08.2026 by taking into account the grievances projected and at Page No.# 6/7 the same time the fact that the husband of the petitioner is 70% locomotor disabled and also the transfer policy of the Bank. Such consideration should be done within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the representation i.e., 12.08.2026. In other words, the representation should be considered and dispose of by way of a reasoned and speaking order by 27.08.2026. Needless to say that the decision to be taken should be invariably communicated to the petitioner. Till such decision is taken by the respondent Bank, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner.” 10. The respondent-Bank, vide impugned communication dated 20.08.2026 has rejected the request of the petitioner pertaining to cancellation/ review of his transfer. A perusal of the said impugned communication reflects that no consideration appears to have been made pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2026 passed by this Court in WP(C)/4437/2026. 11. On the last date i.e. 28.08.2026, this Court had directed Shri Ganguli, learned counsel, who had entered appearance on behalf of the Bank, to obtain instructions. 12. Shri Ganguli, learned counsel, on instructions, fairly submits that the impugned communication rejecting the request of the petitioner for cancellation/ review of his transfer order does not appear to have been passed by the Appropriate Committee in terms of the Transfer Policy for Officer/ Employees of the Bank of India and no reference has been made to the aforesaid directions of this Court dated 18.08.2026. He, therefore, submits that the authorities would constitute a Committee in terms of the Transfer Policy for Officer/ Employees of the Bank of the India and any grievance of the petitioner would be considered in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.08.2026 passed in WP(C)/4437/2026. Page No.# 7/7 13. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the categorical stand of the respondent-Bank that the case of the petitioner shall be considered by the Committee in terms of the Transfer Policy for Officer/ Employees and in accordance with the order of this Court dated 18.08.2026 passed in WP(C)/4437/2026, I deem it appropriate to close this writ petition as no useful purpose would be served in keeping the same pending. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner as per the Transfer Policy pertaining to the transfer and posting of the petitioner in terms of the order of this Court passed in WP(C)/4437/2026. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the manner indicated above. 15. It is needless to observe that the status quo, as prevailed on the date of the order dated 18.08.2026 passed in WP(C)/4437/2026, shall be maintained. JUDGE Comparing Assistant