Transfer Orders Disregarding Family, Health Or Safety Concerns Are Unjust, Violate Article 21: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently observed that transfer orders which disregard the family, health, or safety concerns of an employee is against human dignity and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice CV Karthikeyan said that while issuing transfer orders, there must be a balance between the administrative requirements and the familial responsibilities of the employee. “It must also be pointed out that transfers which disregard family, health, or safety concerns are unjust and could violate Article 21, which protects human dignity. Transfers cannot be carried out in a mechanical or burdensome manner. There must be a balance between administrative requirements and the personal safety, family responsibilities and well-being of the employee,” the court said. The court also highlighted that women were always tied to their family and could not be expected to move around frequently. The court thus asked Union Bank of India to reconsider their existing transfer policy which mandated transfer of employees after 9 years of service at particular place and initiated disciplinary proceedings against the employees when they failed to join the new place immediately. The court said that the policy disproportionately affected women and caused considerable hardship. Thus, the court thought it fit to put forth safeguards, to prevent the indirect discrimination meted out to the women working in the bank. “It is evident that the policy disproportionately affects women, who suffer under the order of transfer. A woman is tied to her family, to her children, to her parents, and to the security of her place of work. She cannot be expected to be moved around frequently without significant hardship. The irregularities in the policy must be understood, and need to be properly addressed,” the court said. The court thus asked the bank to consider establishing a Counselling Centre to support employees who have completed six years of continuous service in a particular station, informing them of potential transfer after 9 years. The court also suggested establishing a Medical team at each zone to address the physical and psychological concerns of the employee. The court also suggested that the bank give permissions to the women officers for home visits when they have been transferred to a different location. It was also suggested that minimum 20 days be given for joining at the new location and do away with the decision to initiate disciplinary action for failure to join by the said date. The court also asked the Bank to establish Grievance Redressal Cell and make genuine efforts to redress the grievances of employees. The court was hearing a petition filed by All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association challenging the transfer policy of the bank. The association said that women employees were subjected to transfers to places very far away from their family causing them hardships. It was also contended that the Bank was resorting to an arm-twisting method by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the bank employees who could not join the new zone by the specified time. The bank, on the other hand, argued that the policy was transparent, unfirm and had been consistently applied for both male and female officers. Pointing to the nature of work in a Bank, it was contended that handling money required transfers to be effected periodically. It was further argued that transfers were necessary to ensure that work was divided equally among all zones. The court, however, noted that there were shortcomings in the policy. The court was also dismayed by the difficulties faced by women officers who had to move to another part of the country, leaving their sick child or aged parents, or with some medical conditions. While the court agreed that it could not decide specific measures, the court added that the bank could consider widening the grounds of exemption from transfer and could permit the individuals to indicate their preferred zone of posting and go on appeal if it wasn't considered. Thus, though the court did not strike down the circulars in challenge, the court issued directions to the Bank to consider the grievances of the employees and make changes to its policies. The court also asked the Bank not to take disciplinary action against the women employees for non-joining the place of transfer. Counsel for Applicant: Ms.R.Vaigai Senior Counsel for Ms.Anna Mathew Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for Mr.Edward James, Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy (SPC) Case Title: All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Anr v. Union Bank of India and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 180 Case No: W.P.NO.28838 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download the Judgment

Transfer Orders Disregarding Family, Health Or Safety Concerns Are Unjust, Violate Article 21: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Transfer Orders Disregarding Family, Health Or Safety Concerns Are Unjust, Violate Article 21: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers