'Transfers Ignoring Health, Family, and Safety Are an Affront to Human Dignity': Madras High Court
The In a stinging rebuke to the Union Bank of India, the Madras High Court has held that transferring employees—particularly women—without considering their health, family responsibilities, or safety amounts to a violation of human dignity.
"Transfers cannot be carried out in a mechanical or burdensome manner. There must be a balance between administrative requirements and the personal safety, family responsibilities and well-being of the employee," the bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan observed.
Court allowed a petition filed by the All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and a woman officer. The petition had challenged staff circulars dated October 2022, June 2023, and February 2025, which formed part of the bank’s “long tenure” transfer policy.
Court noted that while administrative transfers may be necessary, any blanket policy that does not allow room for compassion or individual assessment—especially in the case of women—becomes oppressive.
"A woman is tied to her family, to her children, to her parents, and to the security of her place of work. She cannot be expected to be moved around frequently without significant hardship," the order stated.
The petitioners pointed out that several women had been transferred thousands of kilometers away from their families, without adequate time to join, and were even threatened with disciplinary action if they failed to comply. Many officers, they said, had either gone on unpaid leave or suffered mental and physical health issues as a result.
Court found that Union Bank’s circulars were in direct conflict with the Ministry of Finance’s 2014 guidelines, which mandate that public sector banks must accommodate women officers near their spouses or family members whenever possible.
Although the bank argued it had provided a digital portal for employees to express zone preferences, the court said the system lacked transparency and consistency. "Permitting individuals to indicate their preferred zone of posting, permitting filing an appeal if the place is not considered, and subsequently permitting approaching the Grievance Redressal Cell are insufficient," court said.
Court further rejected the argument that transfer policy decisions were beyond judicial scrutiny. "This Court under Article 226 is within its jurisdiction to put forth the following safeguards, to prevent indirect discrimination of woman working under the first and second respondents and to promote equality," court said.
Court asked the bank to revise its policy in line with constitutional mandates and the Central Government’s directives. It also requested the bank to withdraw any disciplinary proceedings initiated against women officers who were unable to join their transfer postings and further asked it to re-examine the timeline for joining with an open mind and to consider requests for re-transfer—not necessarily to a specific location, but at least within the same zone and reasonably close to the officer's home, family, children's school, or place of ongoing medical treatment.
Case Title: All India Union Bank Officer Staff Association and Another vs Union Bank of India and Others
Download judgment here