Court Rules Transfer Ignoring Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Bank's Special Policy as Arbitrary and Violative of Fundamental Rights; Directs Reconsideration with Reasoned Order
In a landmark judgment dated October 5, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, set aside the transfer order of Rahul Agrawal, a bank officer of UCO Bank, who was transferred over 1000 kilometers away from Jaipur to Ahmedabad despite being the sole caregiver of his younger brother suffering from Thalassemia with 75% permanent disability. The Court held the transfer order arbitrary and violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Equal Opportunity Policy framed by the bank for the fiscal years 2024-27.
The petitioner's brother, Ashish Kumar Agrawal, requires regular blood transfusions every 15-20 days and depends entirely on Rahul Agrawal for medical care, financial support, and daily assistance. This dependency was officially recorded in the petitioner's service records. The bank, as an employer under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, had framed a Special Equal Opportunity Policy pursuant to Sections 20 and 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This policy mandates exemption from routine or rotational transfers for employees who are caregivers of dependents with a specified disability of not less than 40%, subject only to genuine administrative constraints.
Despite these provisions, the bank issued the transfer order following Rahul Agrawal's promotion, without applying its own Special Policy or considering the severe hardship the transfer would cause. The rejection of the petitioner's representation challenging the transfer was a non-speaking order lacking any reasoned consideration of the disability certificate or the caregiver exemption clauses. The Court found this to be a clear case of non-application of mind and arbitrariness.
In its detailed judgment, the Court emphasized that while transfers are normally an administrative prerogative and courts generally refrain from interference, judicial review is warranted if the order violates statutory rules, binding policies, or constitutional guarantees. The Court underscored that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is a beneficial legislation aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that the bank's Equal Opportunity Policy is not charitable but a binding statutory obligation.
The Court noted that the bank's Special Policy provisions 7(v) and 7(vi) require reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and their caregivers, preventing postings that cause disproportionate hardship. The expression "administrative constraints" cannot be used as a blanket excuse to sidestep these protections. By transferring the petitioner to a distant place lacking adequate medical facilities for his brother, the bank not only acted arbitrarily but also violated Article 21 (right to life and dignity) of the Constitution.
While quashing the transfer, the Court clarified that the petitioner cannot claim immunity from transfer indefinitely. The bank was directed to reconsider the petitioner's case afresh in light of the Equal Opportunity Policy and the medical needs of the petitioner's brother. The petitioner was allowed to continue at his current posting until such reconsideration. The bank was also permitted to transfer the petitioner to any other vacant post, except the proposed distant location, but must issue a reasoned and speaking order consistent with the policy and humanitarian considerations.
This judgment reinforces the primacy of special protections for persons with disabilities and their caregivers over general administrative policies and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that employers comply with statutory obligations and constitutional mandates.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of bank employee who is sole caregiver of dependent brother suffering from Thalassemia with 75% permanent disability, without considering binding Equal Opportunity Policy framed under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is arbitrary and liable to be quashed; special policy for persons with disabilities and caregivers prevails over general transfer policy and any departure must be supported by genuine administrative exigency through a reasoned order.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India, Sections 20 and 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Rahul Agrawal v. UCO Bank, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993459
