# Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 12
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3793 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-chaturvedi-v-central-bank-of-india-ors-48643
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Transfers/Posting of
physically challenged officers - Rights of
Persons
with
Disabilities
Act,
2016:
Section 2(r), 2(d), 2(s) - If there is any
beneficial or compassionate policy to
accommodate
any
employee
for
the
specific and certain reason, the same must
be abide by in its letter and spirit. (Para 17)

(i) If the same policy is providing two
separate guidelines, the guideline which is
of beneficial nature shall prevail over the
general
guidelines
inasmuch
as
the
beneficial guideline is issued to serve a
particular purpose and if such guideline is
flouted it may cause an irreparable loss to
a person which, generally, cannot be
compensated in terms of money. The
Transfer Policy/Guidelines which provides that
whosoever has completed 10 years of service at
one place shall be transferred from one zone to
another zone, then the same policy also clearly
indicates vide para 1.2 that a transfer/posting of
a spouse etc. of a person with 'benchmark
disability' or long term disability, shall be
exempted from routine/rotational transfer in
terms of DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018.
(Para 18)

The DOPT Guidelines (infra) clearly provides
that such government employee may be
exempted
from
routine
transfer/rotational
transfer
subject
to
the
administrative
constraints. A routine/rotational transfer, which
has been made in compliance of the guidelines,
may not be considered as administrative
constraint. (Para 18)

(ii) There is no good reason to implement
the policy vide para-3 i.e. 'Rotational
Transfer' ignoring the para 1.2 of the
same policy (infra). The rotational transfers
are meant for a person who has not been
protected by any compassionate or beneficial
policy but if any employee has been protected
from any beneficial or compassionate policy, the
same may not be ignored unless there is any
administrative reason to transfer such person
from one zone to another zone. (Para 19)

B.
Normally,
the
transfer
is
an
exigency/incidence of service and courts
ordinarily do not interfere with the transfer
orders but if such transfer may be avoided
for any specific compelling reason and that
reason is unavoidable, the Competent
Authority being model employer should
consider such condition sympathetically. At
the same time the transfer may not be punitive in
nature. (Para 22)

In the present case, petitioner's wife is serving
on the post of Telephone Attendant in
Secretariat Telephone Exchange at Lucknow
despite having 100% disability and while
discharging her duties on such post she has
confidence at the back of her mind that her
husband is residing at Lucknow to look-after her
in a critical situation, if need be. But,
compelling/directing petitioner to submit his
joining at Cooch Behar, Kolkata, which is about
1500
KM
from
Lucknow,
would
cause
6 All. Neeraj Chaturvedi Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
13
irreparable mental pain to him as he would not
be able to look-after and take care of his wife
and would cause irreparable mental injury to his
wife as well. (Para 20, 22)

Petitioner's grievance has been considered
earlier and he was retained at Lucknow and
therefore, it should be considered now as well,
as it is of permanent nature, irrespective of the
question of availability of post. (Para 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
16.04.2022, passed by General Manager,
Central Bank of India, Human Resource
Deptt. transferring 163 employees in
different Zones as well as order dated
20.04.2022, whereby petitioner has been
directed to be relieved from his present
place of posting.

## Text

12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
demonstrate that the rule of normalization has
been adopted at different stages of the
selection to prejudice the rights and interest
of the candidates who participated in the
selection process.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed, consigned to records
with no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)06ILR A12
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 3793 of 2022

Neeraj Chaturvedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shreesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gopal Kumar Srivastava

A. Service Law - Transfers/Posting of
physically challenged officers - Rights of
Persons
with
Disabilities
Act,
2016:
Section 2(r), 2(d), 2(s) - If there is any
beneficial or compassionate policy to
accommodate
any
employee
for
the
specific and certain reason, the same must
be abide by in its letter and spirit. (Para 17)

(i) If the same policy is providing two
separate guidelines, the guideline which is
of beneficial nature shall prevail over the
general
guidelines
inasmuch
as
the
beneficial guideline is issued to serve a
particular purpose and if such guideline is
flouted it may cause an irreparable loss to
a person which, generally, cannot be
compensated in terms of money. The
Transfer Policy/Guidelines which provides that
whosoever has completed 10 years of service at
one place shall be transferred from one zone to
another zone, then the same policy also clearly
indicates vide para 1.2 that a transfer/posting of
a spouse etc. of a person with 'benchmark
disability' or long term disability, shall be
exempted from routine/rotational transfer in
terms of DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018.
(Para 18)

The DOPT Guidelines (infra) clearly provides
that such government employee may be
exempted
from
routine
transfer/rotational
transfer
subject
to
the
administrative
constraints. A routine/rotational transfer, which
has been made in compliance of the guidelines,
may not be considered as administrative
constraint. (Para 18)

(ii) There is no good reason to implement
the policy vide para-3 i.e. 'Rotational
Transfer' ignoring the para 1.2 of the
same policy (infra). The rotational transfers
are meant for a person who has not been
protected by any compassionate or beneficial
policy but if any employee has been protected
from any beneficial or compassionate policy, the
same may not be ignored unless there is any
administrative reason to transfer such person
from one zone to another zone. (Para 19)

B.
Normally,
the
transfer
is
an
exigency/incidence of service and courts
ordinarily do not interfere with the transfer
orders but if such transfer may be avoided
for any specific compelling reason and that
reason is unavoidable, the Competent
Authority being model employer should
consider such condition sympathetically. At
the same time the transfer may not be punitive in
nature. (Para 22)

In the present case, petitioner's wife is serving
on the post of Telephone Attendant in
Secretariat Telephone Exchange at Lucknow
despite having 100% disability and while
discharging her duties on such post she has
confidence at the back of her mind that her
husband is residing at Lucknow to look-after her
in a critical situation, if need be. But,
compelling/directing petitioner to submit his
joining at Cooch Behar, Kolkata, which is about
1500
KM
from
Lucknow,
would
cause
6 All. Neeraj Chaturvedi Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
13
irreparable mental pain to him as he would not
be able to look-after and take care of his wife
and would cause irreparable mental injury to his
wife as well. (Para 20, 22)

Petitioner's grievance has been considered
earlier and he was retained at Lucknow and
therefore, it should be considered now as well,
as it is of permanent nature, irrespective of the
question of availability of post. (Para 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
16.04.2022, passed by General Manager,
Central Bank of India, Human Resource
Deptt. transferring 163 employees in
different Zones as well as order dated
20.04.2022, whereby petitioner has been
directed to be relieved from his present
place of posting.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents-Bank.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated
16.04.2022 passed by the opposite party
No.1
transferring
as
many
as
163
employees in different Zones serving at
Central Bank of India from one place to
another. The petitioner, whose name finds
place at serial No.132, has been transferred
from Lucknow to Cooch Behar, Kolkota.
The petitioner has also assailed the order
dated 20.04.2022 whereby he has been
directed to be relieved from his present
place of posting.

3. The petitioner is serving on the post
of Officer (Scale-II) in Central Bank of
India.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Shireesh Kumar, has
drawn attention of this Court towards
Annexure No.3 of the writ petition, which
is Unique Disability ID issued by the
Competent Authority of the Government of
India relating to wife of the petitioner,
namely, Smt. Priya Chaturvedi, who is
permanent disable person having 100%
disability.

5. Further attention of this Court has
been drawn by learned counsel for the
petitioner towards the policy/norms framed
on Transfer of Mainstream/ Specialized
Officer in Scale-I, II & III of the Bank. Sri
Shireesh Kumar has referred para-1.2 of the
aforesaid policy, which reads as under:-

"1.2 In respect of transfers/ posting of
physically
challenged
officers,
with
benchmark disability and Officer who is
caregiver of dependent daughter/ son/
parents/ spouse/ brother/ sister with
'Specified Disability' as certified by the
certifying authority, as a Person with
Benchmark Disability, as defined under
Section 2 (r) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016, in terms of DOPT
guidelines
O.M.No.42011/3/2014-Estt
(Res) dated 8th October, 2018, bank shall
follow the guidelines issued by Govt. of
India from time to time, subject to
administrative constraint."

6. Since one memorandum of DOPT
dated 08.10.2018 has been referred in the
aforesaid guideline of the Bank so Sri
Kumar has demonstrated such office
memorandum being issued by the DOPT
dated 08.10.2018 which has been annexed
as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. He
has drawn attention of this Court towards
para-3 (i) & (iii) of the aforesaid office
14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
memorandum of DOPT dated 08.10.2018,
which read as under:-

"(i) A Government employee who is a
care-giver of dependent daughter/ son/
parents/ spouse/ brother/ sister with
Specified Disability, as certified by the
certifying authority as a Person with
Benchmark Disability as defined under
Section 2 (r) of the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted
from
the
routine
exercise
of
transfer/rotational transfer subject to the
administrative constraints.

(iii) The term 'Specified Disability' as
defined herein is applicable as grounds
only for the purpose of seeking exemption
from routine transfers/ rotational transfer
by the Government employee, who is a
care-giver of dependent daughter/ son/
parents/ spouse/ brother/ sister as stated in
para-3 (i) above."

7. Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
so as to understand the meaning of 'caregiver',
'benchmark
disability'
and
'permanent
disability',
the
relevant
provision of Rights of Persons with
Disabilities
Act,
2016
(here-in-after
referred to as the "Act, 2016") may be
perused. Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2016
defines 'care-giver', Section 2 (r) defines
'benchmark disability' and Section 2 (s)
defines
'person
with
disability',
for
convenience, Section 2 (d), (r) & (s) are
being reproduced here-in-below:-

"2 (d) "care-giver" means any person
including
parents
and
other
family
Members who with or without payment
provides care, support or assistance to a
person with disability;

(r) "person with benchmark disability"
means a person with not less than forty per
cent of a specified disability where
specified disability has not been defined in
measurable terms and includes a person
with disability where specified disability
has been defined in measurable terms, as
certified by the certifying authority;

(s) "person with disability" means a
person with long term physical, mental,
intellectual or sensory impairment which,
in interaction with barriers, hinders his full
and effective participation in society
equally with others."

8. As per Sri Kumar, the present
petitioner being care-giver of his wife who
is permanent disabled, may be given the
benefit of own policy of the Bank vide item
No.1.2 (supra). As per the aforesaid
protection, any transfer of employee be it
routine transfer or rotational transfer may
be exempted from such transfer.

9. Sri Kumar has further submitted
that vide office order dated 20.04.2022
(Annexure
No.8)
the
petitioner
was
directed to get himself relieved but he has
not been relieved as he has not submitted
any application for relieving, as recital to
this effect has been given in para-31 of the
writ petition. However in para-32 of the
writ petition, it has been indicated that out
of so many posts of Manager/ Officer in the
rank of the petitioner are vacant in
Lucknow Region and the petitioner may be
accommodated against any post in such
Region inasmuch as if he is compelled to
submit his joining to Cooch Behar, Kolkata
which is about 1500 KM from Lucknow,
he would not be able to look-after his wife,
who is requiring permanent care from her
husband.

10. Therefore, Sri Kumar has
submitted that the impugned transfer order,
so far as it relates to the petitioner, may be
6 All. Neeraj Chaturvedi Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors.
15
stayed
and
the
petitioner
may
be
accommodated at anywhere at Lucknow
Region if he may not be permitted to be
posted at a place from where he has been
transferred to Cooch Behar, Kolkata.

11. Per contra, Sri Gopal Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite
parties has submitted that the present
petitioner is serving at Lucknow Region for
the last about 28 years and as per the same
Transfer Policy/ Guidelines, any officer
who has completed 10 years at one
place/zone shall be transferred to another
place/zone. Therefore, pursuant to the
aforesaid policy the present petitioner has
been transferred from Lucknow Zone to
another zone.

12. Sri Srivastava has further
submitted that on earlier occasion the
similar grievance of the petitioner has been
considered sympathetically, therefore, he
has been retained at Lucknow Zone for
about 28 years.

13. Sri Srivastava has also submitted
that wife of the petitioner is serving on the
post of Telephone Attendant in Secretariat
Telephone Exchange, Lucknow.

14. Sri Shireesh Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner has not disputed
the aforesaid submission of learned counsel
for the opposite parties, however, he has
submitted that she has been given such
appointment under the handicapped quota.

15. Sri Srivastava has also apprised
the Court that the petitioner has already
been relieved on 09.05.2022 and in his
place one incumbent has already joined,
therefore, it may not be possible for the
Bank to permit the petitioner to serve on
the same post at the same place. He has
also submitted on the basis of instructions
that in the Lucknow Region almost all the
vacancies are already filled up.

16. Learned counsel for the parties are
agreeable that the matter may be disposed
of finally at the admission stage as the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties have been considered.

17. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record, I am of the considered
opinion that if there is any beneficial or
compassionate policy to accommodate any
employee for the specific and certain
reason, the same must be abide by in its
letter and spirit.

18. Since wife of the petitioner is a
permanent disable person having 100%
disability and to look-after and take care of
her is a sole responsibility of the petitioner,
then his status shall come within the
meaning of term 'care-giver' as defines
under Section 2 (d) of the Act, 2016. On
account of disability of wife of the
petitioner, she is a person with the
'benchmark disability' and a 'person with
disability' as per the meaning of Section 2
(r) & (s) of the Act, 2016. If the Competent
Authority of the Bank has transferred the
petitioner in compliance of the Transfer
Policy/ Guidelines which provides that
whosoever has completed 10 years of
service at one place shall be transferred
from one zone to another zone, then the
same policy also clearly indicates vide para
1.2 that a transfer/ posting of a spouse etc.
of a person with 'benchmark disability' or
long term disability, shall be exempted
from routine/ rotational transfer in terms of
DOPT Guidelines dated 08.10.2018. The
DOPT Guidelines (supra) clearly provides
that such government employee may be
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exempted from routine transfer/ rotational
transfer subject to the administrative
constraints. A routine/ rotational transfer,
which has been made in compliance of the
guidelines, may not be considered as
administrative constraint. Besides, if the
same policy is providing two separate
guidelines, the guideline which is of
beneficial nature shall prevail over the
general
guidelines
inasmuch
as
the
beneficial guideline is issued to serve a
particular purpose and if such guideline is
flouted it may cause an irreparable loss to a
person
which,
generally,
cannot
be
compensated in terms of money.

19. Therefore, I do not find any good
reason to implement the policy vide para-3
i.e. 'Rotational Transfer' ignoring the para
1.2 of the same policy (supra). The
rotational transfers are meant for a person
who has not been protected by any
compassionate or beneficial policy but if
any employee has been protected from any
beneficial or compassionate policy, the
same may not be ignored unless there is
any administrative reason to transfer such
person from one zone to another zone.

20. In the present case, the wife of the
petitioner is serving on the post of Telephone
Attendant in Secretariat Telephone Exchange
at Lucknow despite having 100% disability
and while discharging her duties on such post
she has confidence in the back of her mind
that her husband is residing at Lucknow to
look-after her in a critical situation, if need
be, but if the petitioner is compelled to submit
his joining at Cooch Behar which is about
1500 KM from Lucknow, the wife of the
petitioner may likely to suffer irreparable
loss.

21. Now, the question that there is no
post available in Lucknow Region and the
petitioner may not be permitted to serve
anywhere at Lucknow Region, I am unable
to comprehend that when the petitioner has
earlier
been
retained
at
Lucknow
considering his aforesaid grievance then as
to why his grievance has not been
considered now inasmuch as the grievance
of the petitioner is of permanent nature.

22. Normally, the transfer is an
exigency/ incidence of service and no
courts are ordinarily interfered with the
transfer orders but if such transfer may be
avoided for any specific compelling reason
and that reason is unavoidable, the
Competent
Authority
being
model
employer should consider such condition
sympathetically. At the same time the
transfer may not be punitive in nature and
in the present case if the petitioner is
directed to submit his joining at Cooch
Behar, Kolkata, it would cause irreparable
mental pain to him that he would not be
able to look-after and take care of his wife
which would cause irreparable mental
injury to her also.

23.

Therefore,
considering
the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the
issue in question, I hereby allow the present
petition at the admission stage. The
impugned
order
dated
16.04.2022
(Annexure No.6), so far as it relates to the
petitioner, to be more precise the transfer of
the petitioner is concerned, is hereby
quashed.

24. Since in place of petitioner
someone has submitted his joining, as
informed by Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava as
per instructions, therefore, the opposite
parties are directed to accommodate the
petitioner at any suitable place at Lucknow
Region, be it in a rural areas or urban areas
as per the convenience of the authorities
6 All. Laxmi Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.
17
and appropriate order to that effect shall be
issued forthwith, preferably, within a
period of fifteen days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. The
petitioner is also directed to submit his
joining at a place where he is directed to
submit his joining in compliance of this
order forthwith.

25. However, no order as to cost.
----------
(2022)06ILR A17
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 4339 of 2022

Laxmi ...Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Maharani Deen Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Compassionate
appointment is not a vested right or an
alternate mode of employment. It has to
be considered and granted under the
relevant rules. The purpose to offer
compassionate appointment is to show
compassion to the family that has suddenly
landed in a crisis for loss of regular income of
the deceased bread winner who met an
accidental death. It is not a heritable right
to be considered after an unreasonable
period, for the vacancies cannot be held
up for long and that appointment should
not ordinarily await the attainment of
majority. Where the family has survived
for long, its circumstances must be seen
before
the
competent
authority
may
consider such appointment. It is not to be
ordinarily granted, where a person died close to
his retirement. (Para 4, 7, 10)

The
intention
of
giving
compassionate
appointment is to virtually restore the source of
livelihood which the family has stood denuded
of on account of bread winner's death in
harness but in the present case, where the
family has survived for more than a decade and
there has never been any effort to seek
compassionate appointment for all those years
passed, the claim of divorced daughter on
account of her being divorced by her husband in
the year 2020, is not liable to be considered as
divorce of a married daughter after 13 years of
the death of her father itself cannot be a cause
to show compassion in the matter.

Mother had been given all the terminal dues and
she
never
made
any
application
for
compassionate appointment and she also settled
her daughter with her husband. Admittedly, she
was not dependent of her father when he died
and only mother was dependent, who never
came
forward
to
seek
appointment
on
compassionate ground. (Para 8, 13, 14)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Iqbal Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (2022) 04
ILR A 714 (Para 5)

2. Navendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., Special Appeal No. 1601 of 2012, decided
on 22.10.2021 (Para 9)

3. U.O.I. Vs Smt. Asha Mishra, Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 13102 of 2010, decided on
07.05.2010 (Para 10)

4. Central Coalfields Ltd. Through its Chairman
and Managing Director & ors. Vs Parden Oraon,
Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2021, decided on 9th
April, 2021 (Para 11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.