CWP-20593-2026 (O&M) -1- 113 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20593-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.07.2026 LAKHVINDER SINGH ..Petitioner Versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate (through v.c.) for respondents-Bank. SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 (Annexure P-9), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred to Local Head Office, Chandigarh to Local Head Office, Ahmedabad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been transferred against transfer policy/circular dated 23.08.2022 attached with the writ petition, whereby, there is a specific column that officers, who have crossed 55 years of age shall ordinarily be exempted from the purview of the transfer policy. 3. He further contends that petitioner is 55 years old, therefore, could not be transferred as per policy/circular dated 23.08.2022. 4. He further contends that petitioner has filed representation dated 06.06.2026, which is attached with the present writ petition as Annexure MOHD AYUB 2026.07.13 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20593-2026 (O&M) -2- P-10, which is not decided by respondents till date. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed. 5. Notice of motion. 6. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and filed his memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents contend that transfer policy/circular is revised on 23.01.2026, which he has given in Court and taken on record. He further contends that petitioner has placed on record the old policy/circular and in the new policy, there is no such exemption for the employees, who crossed 55 years of age. Further that representation attached with the present writ petition as Annexure P-10 is already rejected on 26.06.2026. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 9. A perusal of the file shows that petitioner has relied upon old policy/circular and as per the new policy, which is placed on record by learned counsel for respondents, there is no exemption for employees of any age to be transferred. And further that the representation filed by the petitioner is also rejected by the respondents. 10. It is settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that transfer is an incident of service in plethora of judgments, some of them are referred to by this Court in CWP-20757-2026, titled as “Dr. Sandeep Singh Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board Through Its Chairman and others”, decided on 10.07.2026 and CWP-20077-2026, titled as “Amrik Singh and another Vs. Union of India and others”, decided on 07.07.2026. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.13 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-20593-2026 (O&M) -3- 11. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. July 10th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Sahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.13 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.