The Rajasthan High Court has cancelled the transfer of a UCO Bank manager assigned to a branch nearly 1,000 kilometres away, ruling that transferring an employee who serves as the sole caregiver for a brother with severe thalassemia is arbitrary, inhumane, and unconstitutional.
In an order issued on October 5, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the bank’s decision to shift Rahul Agrawal from the Baneti branch in Rajasthan’s Jaipur zone to the Bhadwa branch in Gujarat’s Ahmedabad zone. The bench directed the state-run lender to retain Agrawal at his existing station until his situation is properly reviewed under the bank’s internal welfare policies.
The court held that forcing the relocation of an employee whose dependent relative requires blood transfusions every two to three weeks violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to health and a life with dignity.
Binding Nature Of Disability Safeguards
Central to the dispute was UCO Bank’s Equal Opportunity Policy for 2024–2027. The framework contains express provisions designed to shield persons with disabilities and their primary caregivers from routine or rotational transfers, subject only to justifiable administrative requirements. It also stipulates that personnel with disabilities should not be posted far from their homes if daily travel poses hardship.
Justice Dhand affirmed that the bank’s internal policy carries statutory force rather than serving as discretionary charity. The bench noted that public sector institutions cannot draft protective policies for outward display while failing to implement them in practice.
The judge observed that the bank’s transfer order made no mention of Agrawal’s circumstances, his brother’s certified disability, or the applicable caregiver provisions, categorising the administrative action as a clear failure to apply institutional judgment.
Severe Dependency Documented In Bank Records
Agrawal approached the court after the bank issued his transfer order on May 16 and subsequently rejected his formal plea for cancellation on September 8.
Court filings established that Agrawal’s younger brother, Ashish Kumar Agrawal, has a 75 per cent permanent physical disability caused by thalassemia, as certified on April 19, 2022, by the Department of Medical and Health of the Government of Rajasthan.
Agrawal submitted that he is solely responsible for his brother’s physical care, daily medical management, and financial sustenance, noting that no other family member is available to provide assistance. The High Court highlighted that this arrangement was not an afterthought created for litigation, as Agrawal had previously declared the dependency in the bank’s official service and human resources records without objection from the management.
Rejection Of Blanket Administrative Grounds
UCO Bank opposed the petition on the grounds that officers must be transferred following promotion. Agrawal had been elevated from Scale-I to Scale-II on April 1, 2026. The bank also argued that he had completed more than seven years across postings within the Jaipur zone since January 2018, asserting that the transfer formed part of regular administrative redeployments executed without ill intent.
The High Court dismissed those arguments, designating the bank’s September 8 rejection letter as a non-speaking order that failed to offer any rationale for ignoring Agrawal’s exemption request. The court found this failure discriminatory and contrary to fundamental guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Addressing the bank’s defense, the bench ruled that administrative constraints cannot be cited mechanically as a catch-all excuse to override protective policies. Any departure from established caregiving exemptions requires demonstrable and pressing operational necessities.
While invalidating the current posting order, the court clarified that Agrawal does not possess permanent immunity from future transfers given his lengthy tenure in the Jaipur zone. The bench stated that the management retains the authority to deploy him to another operational vacancy, provided it first gives meaningful consideration to his family obligations and the requirements of its equal opportunity framework.
