Case at a Glance
A UCO Bank Scale-II Manager in Rajasthan, the sole caregiver of his younger brother who has Thalassemia with 75% permanent disability and needs regular transfusions, was transferred to a branch in the Ahmedabad Zone, about 1,000 km away, and his representation was rejected. The Rajasthan High Court held that the Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 has binding force, that its caregiver protection is a reasonable-accommodation measure, and that ‘administrative constraints’ cannot be invoked mechanically. Finding the transfer order mechanical and the rejection non-speaking, it quashed the transfer and directed reconsideration under the policy, while clarifying that the officer has no permanent immunity from transfer.
The petitioner, a Scale-II Manager at UCO Bank’s Baneti branch in Kotputli-Behror district, was transferred by order dated 16 May 2026 to the Bhadwa branch in the Ahmedabad Zone, about 1,000 km away. His representation was rejected on 8 September 2026. His younger brother has Thalassemia with 75% permanent disability, certified in 2022, and needs regular blood transfusions; the petitioner is his sole caregiver, which the Bank’s own records reflect.
He relied on Clauses 7(v) and 7(vi) of UCO Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy for FY 2024-27, framed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Clause 7(vi) allows caregivers of certain disabled dependants to be exempted from routine transfers, subject to administrative constraints. The Bank argued that its transfer policy requires officers to move after promotion, that he had served about eight years in the Jaipur Zone, and that the transfer was an administrative decision without malice.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a bank transfer an officer who is the sole caregiver of a dependant with a benchmark disability far away, without considering the caregiver protection in its Equal Opportunity Policy under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?
A Binding Policy, Not a Voluntary Gesture
The Court accepted that courts ordinarily do not interfere with transfers, but held that judicial review is available where a transfer violates a binding policy, is mala fide or is arbitrary. It treated the Equal Opportunity Policy, framed under Sections 20 and 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016, as having binding force, not as a voluntary gesture. Clause 7 is a reasonable-accommodation measure; ‘administrative constraints’ cannot be a mechanical exception, and any departure must rest on genuine, demonstrable exigencies.
The transfer order made no mention of the disability certificate or the policy, which the Court called “a classic case of non-application of mind”, and the rejection of the representation was non-speaking and arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16. Moving a caregiver far away from a dependant who needs regular treatment also raised concerns under Article 21. At the same time, the Court made clear that the petitioner cannot claim permanent immunity from transfer; what he is entitled to is a proper reconsideration under the policy.
What the Court Actually Held
- An Equal Opportunity Policy framed under the RPwD Act, 2016 has binding force, and its caregiver clause is a reasonable-accommodation measure.
- ‘Administrative constraints’ cannot be invoked mechanically; a departure from the policy must rest on genuine, demonstrable exigencies and a reasoned order.
- The transfer order dated 16 May 2026, which ignored the disability certificate and the policy, was quashed as regards the petitioner, and the non-speaking rejection was held arbitrary.
- The petitioner may continue at his present posting until reconsideration under Clauses 7(v) and 7(vi); the Bank may transfer him to another station with a vacancy, other than the proposed Ahmedabad posting, only by a reasoned, speaking order.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Employees caring for disabled family members can rely on employer disability policies as enforceable, not merely aspirational.
- It requires employers to engage with the caregiver’s circumstances in a reasoned order instead of citing ‘administrative constraints’ as a formula.
- It balances the employee’s protection with the employer’s right to transfer, by requiring reconsideration rather than granting permanent immunity.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees Who Are Caregivers
- Ensure your employer’s records show your caregiver status and the dependant’s disability certificate.
- Represent against a transfer by citing the specific clauses of the employer’s Equal Opportunity Policy under the RPwD Act.
For Counsel
- Plead that the policy is binding under Sections 20 and 21 of the RPwD Act, 2016, and that the order ignores it.
- Attack non-speaking rejections of representations as arbitrary under Articles 14 and 16.
- Seek a direction for reconsideration by a reasoned order, as courts are reluctant to grant permanent immunity from transfer.
Key Takeaways
- Equal Opportunity Policy under RPwD Act is binding.
- Caregiver clause is reasonable accommodation.
- Mechanical transfer ignoring disability quashed.
- Fresh reasoned decision required; no permanent immunity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a bank employee who cares for a disabled family member be transferred?
Yes, but not mechanically. The Rajasthan High Court held that the bank must apply its Equal Opportunity Policy under the RPwD Act, 2016, and any departure from the caregiver protection must rest on genuine exigencies recorded in a reasoned order.
Did the Court say the officer can never be transferred?
No. It said he cannot claim permanent immunity from transfer. The Bank may transfer him to another station with a vacancy, other than the proposed Ahmedabad posting, by a reasoned and speaking order after reconsideration under the policy.
Why was the transfer quashed?
Because the order did not mention the disability certificate or the policy, which the Court called a classic case of non-application of mind, and the rejection of the representation was non-speaking.
Conclusion
The judgment gives teeth to disability-inclusion policies in public sector employment. It does not take away the employer’s power to transfer, but insists that the power be exercised with attention to the caregiver’s circumstances and the policy the employer itself adopted under the RPwD Act.
Practical takeaway: If you are the caregiver of a dependant with disability and are transferred far away, challenge the order if it ignores your employer’s RPwD-based policy; courts will require a reasoned reconsideration.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com