Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34852 (CHH)

SOURABH BHATTACHARYA v. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

WPS/6401/2026 · 2026-09-06

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010330202026 2026:CGHC:39186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6401 of 2026 Sourabh Bhattacharya S/o Sapan Bhattacharya Aged About 36 Years R/o 79 M L A Nagar, Baikunthpur, District -Koriya (C.G.) Pin 497335, Mob. No. 9340125291 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indian Overseas Bank (Through Its Managing Director / Chairman And C E O, Head Office), Central Office P B No. 3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2 - Regional Manager / Chief Regional Manager Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Phase I I , Investment Building, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pendri,Raipur (C.G.)- 492 004 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate along with Shri Diinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 2 07.09.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Manager in the Indian Overseas Bank, seeks quashment of the posting order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been posted at Samalwar Branch, District Dantewada, as well as the consequential order dated 10.08.2026, whereby his representation seeking transfer to his hometown Baikunthpur or a nearby place on compassionate/medical grounds has been rejected. 2. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as an Assistant Manager under the respondent/Indian Overseas Bank. He submits that the petitioner was initially posted at Akluj Branch, District Solapur, Maharashtra, and was subsequently transferred to District Nashik and other places later on. Thereafter, on his own request, the petitioner was transferred to the Raipur Region vide order dated 19.04.2026 to enable him to take care of his aged and ailing parents residing at Baikunthpur. It is submitted that after joining in the Raipur Region, the petitioner was directed to be posted to 3 Samalwar Branch, District Dantewada vide impugned order dated 24.04.2026 which is situated at a distance of near about 650 kms from Baikunthpur, causing him severe hardship in taking care of his parents. (b) By referring to Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy of the respondent Bank, learned Senior counsel submits that transfer on compassionate grounds may be considered in cases involving prolonged illness of an employee, spouse, children or dependent parents, subject to the employee making a request supported by medical certificates. He submits that though the petitioner submitted representations dated 17.06.2026 and 25.06.2026, requesting that he be continued or adjusted at Baikunthpur till the condition of his parents stabilizes, the said representations have not been considered till date. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent authorities be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representations in accordance with law and the transfer policy. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that when no action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner, he approached this Court by 4 filing WPS No. 5528/2026, wherein this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2026, directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority along with all relevant medical certificates and further directed the respondent-Bank to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and Clause 9 of the Transfer Policy. 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation dated 22.07.2026 along with the relevant medical documents, seeking transfer to Baikunthpur or a nearby place on compassionate grounds. However, the said representation has been rejected vide order dated 10.08.2026 in an illegal and arbitrary manner that too without appreciating the grievances raised by the petitioner in its letter and spirit. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in WPS No. 5528/2026 challenging the posting order dated 24.04.2026. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.07.2026, whereby the 5 petitioner was granted liberty to submit a fresh representation along with relevant medical certificates and the competent authority was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the applicable Transfer Policy. 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation along with the relevant medical documents, which has thereafter been considered and decided by the competent authority vide order dated 10.08.2026. The said representation was thereafter considered by the competent authority and was rejected vide order dated 10.08.2026. It is apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner’s representation has been considered with reference to the revised Transfer Policy of the respondent- Bank, which came into force with effect from 12.03.2025. Since the said policy was in force on the date of consideration of the petitioner’s representation, the same would govern the petitioner’s request for transfer on compassionate/medical grounds. 8. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provision contained in Clause 5.1.3 of the revised Transfer Policy dated 12.03.2025 6 is reproduced hereinbelow: “5.1.3 On request transfer on Compassionate Grounds/Medical Grounds The following shall normally be the grounds for considering the transfer on compassionate/medical grounds and may be considered even before the completion of requisite period, for any of the following reasons, subject to availability of vacancies: (a) Diagnosis of Terminal/Critical Illness for self, spouse or dependent children: Type of diseases to be covered – cancer, paralytic stroke, renal failure, coronary artery disease, thalassaemia, Parkinson’s disease. (b) Any other ground which deserves extreme compassion including death or serious accident of self/spouse/dependent children. Such transfer request will be considered only within one year from the date of first diagnosis of illness covered as above/from the date of death or 7 serious accident.” 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the grounds for consideration of transfer on compassionate/medical grounds are specifically stipulated therein. The provision, inter alia, contemplates terminal/ critical illness of the employee, spouse or dependent children and does not provide for consideration of a transfer request on the ground of illness of dependent parents. 10. It is necessary to mention here that while rejecting the representation of the petitioner the Chief Manager of the Bank categorically observed that the posting place i.e. Samalwar is near to Kirandul, which is only 11 kms. away where all medical facilities are available and officials of various other departments are staying there. It also observed that alleged diseases are not covered under the critical illness as detailed in clause 5.1.3. 11. In the present case, the petitioner seeks transfer essentially on account of the ailments suffered by his aged parents. However, the ground urged by the petitioner does not fall within the circumstances contemplated under Clause 5.1.3 of the prevailing Transfer Policy. Therefore, the petitioner cannot 8 claim transfer on compassionate/medical grounds as a matter of right under the aforesaid provision. 12. Be that as it may, it is a settled law in the matter of Union of India and others v. S.L.. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, wherein it has been observed by the Supreme Court that transfer is an incidence of Government service. Who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. 13. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the posting order dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) or the consequential order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P/8) 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib