# Shubham Bhargava v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 493
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13255 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shubham-bhargava-v-union-of-india-ors-52942
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

12 All. Shubham Bhargava Vs. Union of India & Ors.
493
and Anr. Vs. Shyam Steel Industries
Ltd. decided on 14.03.2022 and judgment
of Bombay High Court rendered in the
case of Amruta Vs. Sachin decided on
01.08.2025. None of the decisions cited
by the appellant appearing in person help
his case in view of the above discussion.

11. For all these reasons, we are of the
opinion that the special appeal is not
maintainable.

12. Accordingly, the special appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 493
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 13255 of 2025

Shubham Bhargava ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 Whether the request of the petitioner for
cancellation of his transfer in terms and
conditions as provided in the transfer policy of
the Bank, can be rejected by the Bank on the
ground of special services being rendered by the
petitioner?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Specialization of an
employee should not be used as a tool
against him, as a specialist can well
render his services with cool and calm
state of mind and if he is being
transferred from one place to another,
in an unpleasant situation, perhaps
his/her skill being specialist; would
have of no avail; for the Bank or any of
the Institution. (Para 16)
The petitioner being Law Manager,
renders special services, in term of
clause of the transfer policy of the
Bank.
He
has
been
transferred
frequently,
which
is
against
the
transfer
policy.
The
authorities
undoubtedly have to look into the interest
of the Bank/Institution but at the same
time, it has also to be considered that if the
employees of the Bank or any Institution
are given conducive atmosphere of working,
the same may enhance the productivity of
such Institution, as the employees are
ultimately the human beings. This principle
cannot be a strait-jacket formula but the
same shall be applicable in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each and every
case. (Para 16)

B. Clause 1.3 of the transfer policy
provides that normal tenure of the
officer at one place of the posting will
be three years of active service and
further clause 1.07 also provides that
the Bank shall make all endeavour to
complete the transfer exercise by 30th
June of every year and the mid session
transfer shall be considered only in
case of promotion and administrative
exigencies. When this Court examines the
whole scenario of the transfer of the
petitioner as well as the transfer policy, it is
apparent that post of the petitioner is
transferable as per Regulations 1979 and
for putting unanimity, the Bank itself has
issued an exhaustive transfer policy. The
petitioner, who served more than nine
years outside the State, while working at
Nagpur and Jabalpur, was transferred in
the State of Uttar Pradesh and was
posted at Zonal Office Kanpur in the year
2023 and in between two years, he has
been
transferred
from
Kanpur
to
Bahraich and again from Bahraich to
Salem in Tamil Nadu, in the month of
July 2025. Normal tenure, which is
provided for posting at one place, is
three years of active service, whereas
the petitioner within two years has been
transferred two times and that too, lastly
about 2000 kms away, in the mid term.
(Para 14, 15)
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The order impugned dated 10.11.2025 (which is
reiteration of earlier ground of rejection and
Bank authorities failing to consider the request
of the petitioner for cancellation of his transfer
in terms and conditions as provided in the
transfer policy of the Bank) and the subsequent
orders thereof, are hereby quashed. (Para 17,
18)

The petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh
claim, agitating all the grounds, before the
competent authority. For this period, the effect
and operation of the impugned transfer order
dated 18.7.2025 shall remain stayed and the
petitioner shall not be forced to join on the
transferred place of posting. (Para 19 to 21)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others Vs. State of Bihar
and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 (Para 13)

List of Acts
 Indian Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979.

List of Keywords
 transfer order, policy, cancellation, special
services.

Appearances for Parties
For
Petitioner(s):
Vivek
Kumar
Shukla,
Shweta Shukla
For Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., Gopal Kumar
Srivastava, Surya Prakash

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shukla and
Ms. Shweta Shukla, learned counsel
for
the
petitioner,
Mr.
Asit
Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate
assisted
by
Mr.
Gopal
Kumar
Srivastava
and
Mr.
Akash
Deep
Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Varun
Pandey, learned counsel for the Union
of India.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has assailed the
transfer order dated 18.7.2025 issued by the
Corporate Office, HRM, Indian Bank
which is communicated by Assistant
General Manager, HRM, Indian Bank.
Further prayer is made for quashing of the
order dated 4.10.2025 passed by the
Grievance Redressal Authority and the
order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the
appellate authority alongwith the order
dated 5.8.2025, by which the petitioner is
relieved.

3. He submitted that against the
transfer order, the petitioner moved a letter
on
21.7.2025
before
the
Grievance
Redressal Cell and, when that remained
unheard, within a period 15 days, he filed a
writ petition bearing Writ-A No. 9921 of
2025 wherein this Court was pleased to
pass the order on 1.9.2025, which is quoted
hereinunder:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned
counsel, who files memo on behalf of
respondent no.1, and Sri Gopal Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents
no.2 and 3.

2. With the consent of learned
counsels for the parties the matter is being
decided finally.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by
the transfer order dated 18.07.2025, a copy
of which is Annexure-1 to the petition,
whereby the petitioner has been transferred
from Bahraich to Salem.

4. It has also been pointed out by
Sri Srivastava that the petitioner has
already been relieved on 05.08.2025. He
also states that as the petitioner has been
relieved as such his entire matter now
would be considered by the competent
12 All. Shubham Bhargava Vs. Union of India & Ors.
495
authority where the petitioner has been
transferred.

5. Various grounds have been
taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to challenge the said order.

6. However, it has been pointed
out that in terms of Clause 26 of the
Transfer Policy for Officers up to scale III
issued by the Indian Bank, a copy of which
is Annexure-5 to the petition, the petitioner
can raise his grievance before the Zonal
Officer/FGMO Corporate Office and that
the petitioner has already raised his
grievance vide grievance dated 21.07.2025,
a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the
petition. As such, it is prayed that the said
grievance be directed to be decided by the
competent authority who is said to be
respondents no.2 and 3.

7.
Accordingly,
considering
Clause 26 of the Transfer Policy the writ
petition is disposed of with a direction to
the competent authority to consider and
dispose of the grievance as raised by the
petitioner, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to
the petition, in accordance with law and
relevant rules which grievance would be
decided within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

8. Till then no coercive action has
been taken against the petitioner in
pursuance to the impugned transfer order
dated 18.07.2025."

4. Further submission is that vide the
aforesaid order, the competent authority of
the Bank was directed to consider the
grievance of the petitioner as per clause 26
of the transfer policy and it was also
provided that till the decision is taken no
coercive action shall be taken against him.
He submitted that in compliance of the
order aforesaid, the order dated 8.9.2025
has been passed but the grievance of the
petitioner has not been redressed and the
request of the petitioner has been rejected
and, being aggrieved, the petitioner again
moved
writ
petition
bearing
Writ-A
No.11252 of 2025, wherein again an order
was passed on 25.9.2025, for deciding the
representation of the petitioner afresh and
again protection was granted for not taking
any coercive action against the petitioner.
The order dated 25.9.2025 passed in WritA No.11252 of 2025 is quoted as under:-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal
Kumar Srivastava, Advocate & Sri Akash
Deep Srivastava, learned counsel for the
respondents no. 2 to 4.

2.
At
the
very
outset,
Sri
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Advocate
informs that the order dated 18.09.2025, a
copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ
petition per which the representation of the
petitioner dated 21.07.2025 has been
rejected, has been withdrawn. He further
states that now a fresh decision would be
taken on the representation by the Chief
General Manager (CDO/CLO) which is the
next higher authority to the General
Manager (HRM) who effected the initial
order of transfer dated 18.07.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the
petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid.

4. Considering the aforesaid,
the writ petition is disposed of leaving it
open for the competent authority to
decide
the
representation
of
the
petitioner a fresh as per statement given
by Sri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondents which would be decided
within a period of ten days, the time
frame as suggested by Sri Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Advocate in accordance
with law and the relevant rules.
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioner in
pursuance to the transfer order dated
18.07.2025.

6. It is further provided that in
case any grievance of the petitioner still
subsist it would be open for the petitioner
to approach the competent Court of law"

5. He submitted that once the order
was not passed, the petitioner again
approached this court by way of filing
Writ-A No.12942 of 2025 wherein on
11.11.2025 following order was passed:-

"It has been informed by Mr. Asit
Chaturvedi,
learned
Senior
Counsel
assisted by Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3
& 4 that the appeal against the order
passed on representation has been decided
on 10.11.2025 by the competent authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that he may be permitted to
withdraw instant petition with liberty to file
afresh while challenging the subsequent
order dated 10.11.2025. He further submits
that a copy of this order has been furnished
to the learned counsel for the petitioner
today in itself in the Court.

With the aforesaid observations,
instant writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with the liberty as sought
above."

6.
Referring
the
aforesaid,
he
submitted that the order dated 11.11.2025
passed by appellate authority was placed
before this Court and the writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
to the petitioner to challenge that order
and now, against the transfer order as
well as the order passed by the appellate
authority, present writ petition has been
preferred.

7. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Law
Officer
in
the
Allahabad
Bank
on
23.9.2013 and he was posted at Nagpur and
thereafter, he was transferred to Jabalpur in
the year 2017 and he served at Jabalpur till
5.2.2023 and on 6.2.2023, he joined at
Zonal Office, Kanpur as Senior Manager
and, hence, the petitioner rendered more
than nine years of services outside the
home State.

8. Adding his arguments, he submitted
that on 29.5.2025, within span of two years
and three months, the petitioner has again
been transferred as Senior Manager, Zonal
Office, Indian Bank, Bahraich and just after
two months, he has again been transferred
on 18.7.2025 from Zonal Office, Baraich to
Zonal Office Salem, Tamil Nadu, vide
impugned transfer order dated 18.7.2025
and
being
aggrieved,
the
petitioner
preferred an appeal, as per para 26 of the
transfer policy, before the Chief General
Manager on 21.7.2025. He argued that the
Bank, for making unanimity in the transfer
policy, has issued transfer policy for
officers upto scale III. He submitted that as
per clause 1.3 of the transfer policy of the
Bank, normal tenure of an officer at one
place of posting, has been provided as three
years and it has also been provided in
clause 1.6 that the Bank shall endeavour to
complete transfer by 30th June of every
year and mid term transfer shall only be
considered in case of promotion and
administrative exigencies. He has also
drawn attention towards clause 5.5 of the
transfer policy and submitted that the
transfer policy also envisages that all
endeavour shall be made to accommodate
officers in respect of linguistic region so as
to ensure seamless customer service to the
maximum extent possible. He argued that
12 All. Shubham Bhargava Vs. Union of India & Ors.
497
the transfer of the petitioner is being done
frequently and in the mid-term, which is
not permitted under the policy.

9. He also submitted that within the
period of three years, the petitioner has
been
transferred
from
Zonal
Office
Bahraich to Zonal Office Salem at Tamil
Nadu, which is two thousand kilometers
away, moreso, the official language of
State of Tamil Nadu is 'Tamil' and the
customers can be dealt with mostly in the
local language, which would be a hurdle in
communication between the petitioner and
the customers. Secondly, even after serving
more than nine years outside the State, the
petitioner has again been transferred within
a span of two years, out of the State, i.e.,
more than thousand kilometers away in
State of Tamil Nadu.

10. He has also emphasized that within
a period of two months, he has been
transferred from one place to another,
which shows that there is implied mala fide
intention of the authorities, best known to
them only. He submitted that once the policy
itself says that all endeavour shall be made
regarding the transfer uptil 30th June of every
year then there was no occasion to transfer
the petitioner in the month of July 2025. He
added that the petitioner is a human being
and transferring the petitioner in frequent
way, that too, thousand kilometers away, in
another State, amounts to harassment and that
also shows that something is running behind
the back of the petitioner in the Bank. He
submitted that the transfer of the petitioner
has been done on whims and fancies of the
Bank officers and in fact, it is not due to any
exigency but for the reason of being an
expert. He also added that being an expert is
one of the special quality of an employee but
the same shall not be used as a tool for
harassment of his goodness.

11. Lastly, he submits that wife of the
petitioner is a bank employee serving at
Kanpur and if the petitioner is transferred
thousand kilometers away, his whole
personal and family life shall be ruined.
Thus, submission is that the transfer of the
petitioner is violative of the transfer policy
of the Bank itself and, as such, the transfer
order dated 18.7.2025 and subsequent
adversial order passed thereof may be
quashed.

12.
Per
contra,
learned
Senior
Advocate appearing for the Bank has
opposed the contentions aforesaid and
submits that the petitioner is specialized
officer, i.e., Senior Manager Law Scale-III
and
looking
into
the
administrative
exigency, i.e., special services of the
petitioner, being a Law Manager, in
consonance with clause 5.2 of the transfer
policy, he has been transferred from Zonal
Office Baharaich to Zonal Office Salem,
Tamil Nadu. He argued that the petitioner's
services are governed with the provisions
of
Indian
Bank
Officers
Service
Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Regulations, 1979') and Regulation
47 of the said Regulations provides that
'every officer is liable to transfer to any
office or branch of the Bank to any place of
India', therefore, the transfer of the
petitioner has been made in consonance
with the provisions of law and Regulation
47 of the Regulations 1979, and the clause
5.2 of the Transfer Policy is concomitant
and, therefore, there is no unlawfulness or
any contradiction thereof. He also added
that the transfer is an incident of service
and no officer can claim posting at a
particular place, more particularly, when
the Regulation 47 of the Regulations 1979
specifically provides regarding the transfer
of an employee from one branch to another
branch in India and, more particularly, this
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy is well known to the petitioner, from
the first date of his joining, in the Bank.
Adding his arguments, he submitted that
clauses 1.2, 4.0, 6.2 and 24.2 including
25.1 very clearly speak about the transfer
of a bank employee and the terms and
conditions
thereof,
has
strictly
been
followed by the Bank. He next added that
so far as the ground is taken that the wife of
the petitioner is working at Kanpur, the
same has been taken for the first time
before this Court and in appeal, this ground
had not been take by the petitioner.

13. Concluding his arguments, he
submitted that as per the settled law started
from Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others Vs.
State of Bihar and others reported in
1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, uptil this time,
the Supreme Court has time and again
reiterated that the transfer can only be
interfered if the same is hit with malice or
mala fide or there is frequent transfers or if
those are against the provision of any law.
Thus, submission is that there is no merit in
the writ petition, therefore, the same may
be dismissed.

14. Upon considering the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties and
after perusal of the record, it emerges that
the petitioner came into service of the
respondent Bank on 23.9.2013 and since
2013 to 5th February 2023, he was working
outside the home district. In the State of
Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner has been
transferred from one place to another
within span of two years as once the
petitioner was transferred from Jabalpur to
Kanpur on 5.2.2023, he was again
transferred on 29.5.2025 to Zonal Office at
Bahraich and further within a period of two
months, i.e., on 18.7.2025, he has been
transferred from Zonal Office Bahraich to
Zonal Office Salem in State of Tamil Nadu,
i.e., thousand kilometers away from the
place of posting.

15. When this Court examines the
whole scenario of the transfer of the
petitioner as well as the transfer policy, it is
apparent that post of the petitioner is
transferable as per Regulations 1979 and
for putting unanimity, the Bank itself has
issued an exhaustive transfer policy. Clause
1.3 of the transfer policy provides that
normal tenure of the officer at one place of
the posting will be three years of active
service and further clause 1.07 also
provides that the Bank shall make all
endeavour to complete the transfer exercise
by 30th June of every year and the mid
session transfer shall be considered only in
case of promotion and administrative
exigencies. The petitioner, who served
more than nine years outside the State,
while working at Nagpur and Jabalpur, was
transferred in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
was posted at Zonal Office Kanpur in the
year 2023 and in between two years, he has
been transferred from Kanpur to Bahraich
and again from Bahraich to Salem in Tamil
Nadu, in the month of July 2025. Normal
tenure, which is provided for posting at one
place, is three years of active service,
whereas the petitioner within two years has
been transferred two times and that too,
lastly about two thousand kilometers away,
in the mid term.

16.
The
petitioner
being
Law
Manager, renders special services, in term
of clause of the transfer policy of the Bank.
He has been transferred frequently, which
is against the transfer policy. This court is
of considered opinion that specialization of
an employee should not be used as a tool
against him, as an specialist can well render
his services with cool and calm state of
mind and if he is being transferred from
12 All. Mohar Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
499
one place to another, in an unpleasant
situation, perhaps his/her skill being
specialist; would have of no avail; for the
Bank or any of the Institution. In fact, the
authorities undoubtedly have to look into
the interest of the Bank/Institution but at
the same time, it has also to be considered
that if the employees of the Bank or any
Institution are given conducive atmosphere
of working, the same may enhance the
productivity of such Institution, as the
employees are ultimately the human
beings. This principle cannot be a straitjacket formula but the same shall be
applicable in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of each and every case.

17. This Court has also noticed that
reiterating the same ground, the decision
has been taken by the Bank while rejecting
the request of the petitioner for cancellation
of his transfer and, therefore, this Court has
twice intervened in the matter. This time
also, the order dated 10.11.2025 is
reiteration of earlier ground of rejection
and the Bank authorities have also failed to
consider the request of the petitioner
cancelling of his transfer in terms and
conditions as provided in the transfer
policy of the Bank.

18. In view of the above submissions
and discussions, the order impugned dated
10.11.2025 and the subsequent orders
thereof, are hereby quashed.

19. The petitioner is given liberty to
move a fresh claim, agitating all the
grounds, before the competent authority,
within a period fifteen days and on
receiving
such
representation,
the
competent
authority
is
directed
to
consider and decide the same within
further period of six weeks, strictly in
accordance with law.

20. The order passed on representation
shall be communicated by the competent
authority to the petitioner.

21. For the aforesaid period, the effect
and operation of the impugned transfer
order dated 18.7.2025 shall remain stayed
and the petitioner shall not be forced to join
on the transferred place of posting.

22. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 499
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 15202 of 2025

Mohar Singh Kushwaha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
 Whether a fresh attachment order could have
been passed in the garb of reinstating petitioner
in service, when the petitioner prior to
suspension was posted in District Mathura and
operation of suspension order was stayed?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908: Section 144 - The party aggrieved is
required to be placed in the same position
in which he/she was prior to passing of
the order which was impugned and has
either been stayed or quashed. The said
principle is an existing rule of justice,
equity and fair play. (Para 11)

Although specific provisions of the Code Civil
Procedure are not applicable in writ jurisdiction,
but the general principles, particularly that of
restitution, would be applicable in the present
case as well. (Para 12)