Patna High CourtCWJC/10090/2025disposed

Pooja Kumari v. The State Bank Of India

2025-07-07Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Chandel6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10090 of 2025 ====================================================== Pooja Kumari wife of Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Resident of Village-Galchaur, P.S.-Krishnagarh, District-Bhojpur (Ara), at present Address-Resident of Mohalla-Flat No.-406, Block-B, Patliputra Heritage Apartment, Gandhi Nagar, Near Patliputra Station, P.S.-Digha, Dist.-Patna, Presently posted as Associate, PF No.-1000146, State Bank of India, LCPC, Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Bank of India Local Head Office, Patna, through The Chief General Manager.

Human Resources/Industrial Relations Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Patna through The Assistant General Manager. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-Bank.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the respondent-bank on 25.01.2021 and was posted at Daltenganj region, Jharkhand as a Junior Associate pursuant to the notification dated 27.08.2021. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.08.2021, Annexure-P/2-A, she was transferred to Patna. Under the same recruitment, the husband of the petitioner has also joined the services in the State Bank of India and his posting was at Patna. Since the petitioner has been

2/6 transferred and joined at Patna, she was got married at Patna. Suddenly, vide order dated 04.04.2025, Annexure-P/5, again the petitioner has been directed to join under Ranchi Zone. The petitioner submitted her representation for cancellation of her transfer, which has also been rejected by the respondent-bank and hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the advertisement no. CRPD/CR/2019-20/20, AnnexureP/2, it is specially mentioned that there is no provision for Inter Circle Transfer/Inter State Transfer for Junior Associates to be recruited but it was the respondent-bank which violated the said stipulation by transferring the petitioner from the State of Jharkhand to the State of Bihar vide letter no. CM/2021-22 dated 27.08.2021, Annexure-P/2A. This transfer was not done on the request made by the petitioner. Since, the respondent bank himself transferred the petitioner to Patna, therefore it was assumed by her that she has not again transferred to the State of Jharkhand, and she got marriage at Patna. Further referring to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services dated 08.08.2014 as well as the guidelines dated 06.04.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of

3/6 Financial Services, it is submitted by the counsel that the said guidelines are also applicable to the respondent-bank, therefore it is prayed by the counsel that taking into consideration the said guidelines also the respondents may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for cancellation of transfer order.

4. Reliance has been placed by the counsel to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5513 of 2022 in the case of Ms. Arti Kumari Vrs. Head of HRM Department, Bank of Baroda and Others.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed pursuant to the advertisement no. CRPD/CR/2019-20/20, Annexure- P/2, in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that there is no provision for Inter Circle Transfer/Inter State Transfer for Junior Associates to be recruited and knowing this fact, the petitioner herself participated in the recruitment process and also joined the services in the State of Jharkhand. He further submits that vide order dated 27.01.2021, petitioner has been temporarily transferred to FI Cell at LCPC Patna for completion of CKYCR work only, therefore, she has been again transferred to her original place of posting under Ranchi Zone.

6. Reliance has been placed by the counsel to the

4/6 judgment passed by the Single Bench of the Chhatisgarh High Court in Writ Petition (s) No. 4458 of 2022 in the case of Bhagyashree Bhimrao Meshram Vrs. State Bank of India & Others.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records annexed with petition.

8. Undisputedly, in the advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that there is no provision for Inter Circle Transfer/Inter State Transfer for Junior Associates to be recruited. There is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner knowingly this fact participated in the recruitment process as well as joined at the place of her posting in Ranchi Zone. She joined there on 25.01.2021. At that time, she was a bachelor lady. After seven months from her joining vide order dated 27.08.2021, she has been transferred to Patna. The said transfer of the petitioner was not made by the respondent-bank on the request made by the petitioner rather the respondent-bank himself wrongly transferred her to Patna in violation of the said clause of the advertisement, whereby the petitioner was appointed. The said mistake was clarified by the Bank after near about three and half years and now she has been again transferred from Patna to the State of Jharkhand. It is pertinent

5/6 to mention here that during the place of posting at Patna, the petitioner got marriage with a person who is also working at Patna in the State Bank of India.

9. From perusal of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services dated 08.08.2014 and 06.04.2014, it is clear that these guidelines are exception in respect of class of female employees who are facing genuine hardships and develop a feeling of insecurity because of her posting at a far-flung place from that of the place of posting of her husband or parents, meaning thereby, the female employee of the bank can be accommodated on these grounds.

10. Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-Bank itself wrongly transferred the petitioner way back in the year 2021 and the said wrong done by the Bank has been rectified by them after about three and half years of her transfer. Further taking into consideration the fact that in between the petitioner, being a lady, got her marriage with one employee of the bank itself, who is posted at Patna, the guidelines as mentioned hereinabove permit the spouse to be posted at the place of posting of her spouse or nearby place. Thus, on these grounds, I am of the view that this petition can

6/6 be disposed of directing the respondent-Bank to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order.

11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. The respondent-Bank is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order as early as possible within 30 days from today.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) shailendra/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.07.2025 Transmission Date NA