Authority: High Court (Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra)

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Soumya Nandi vs. The Zonal Manager, Indian Bank and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition challenging a service transfer order issued by Indian Bank.
  • Key Dates: Transfer order issued on 5 August 2026 at 11:34 a.m.; release order issued the same day at about 5:00 p.m.; petition filed under WPA 26541 of 2026.
  • Petitioner’s Claim: Transfer effected on 5 August 2026 violated Indian Bank’s Transfer Policy for Officers up to Scale‑III, Version 2.1, specifically the cut‑off date of 30 June for completing transfers and the minimum service period of three years for a posting.
  • Bank’s Argument: Rotational transfers may occur after a minimum of one year and up to three years of service; the bank may also transfer on the ground of administrative exigency at any time, citing three Supreme Court decisions (Abani Kanta Ray 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169; National Hydroelectric Power Corp. 2001 8 SCC 574; State of U.P. 2004 11 SCC 402).
  • Policy Extracts Cited:
  • Clause 1.3: Normal tenure at a posting is three years of active service.
  • Clause 1.6: Cut‑off date for reckoning fulfillment of conditions is 30 June each year.
  • Clause 1.7: Bank shall endeavour to complete transfers by 30 June; mid‑term transfers only for promotions or administrative exigencies.
  • Clause 5.0 (Rotational Transfers) table: Minimum tenure 1 year, maximum 3 years for branch/specialized postings; other categories have longer ranges.
  • Service History: Petitioner joined the present posting on 17 June 2025, thereby completing more than one year of service by 30 June 2026.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • Transfer is not a matter of right; courts intervene only when transfer contravenes established policy, rules, or is arbitrary.
  • The transfer order dated 5 August 2026 failed to disclose any ground (rotational, administrative exigency, or otherwise).
  • Absence of disclosed ground makes it impossible to determine compliance with policy; therefore the order is vitiated.
  • While the policy permits administrative‑exigency transfers at any time, such transfers must be expressly disclosed, which was not done.

Final Outcome

  • The transfer order and the accompanying release order dated 5 August 2026 are set aside.
  • The court clarifies that this does not preclude the bank from initiating a fresh transfer process, provided it complies with the policy and discloses the appropriate ground.
  • No order as to costs was made.
  • An urgent photostat certified copy of the order shall be provided to the parties on a priority basis.

Topics: Transfer Policy, Banking Employment