HC Upholds Transfer as Bank Gave Reasonable Accommodation under Disabilities Act

Case Details: Ashwani Kumar Srivastava vs. Central Bank of India - [2025] 179 taxmann.com 670 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Ajay Bhanot, J.
• Ritesh Srivastava for the Petitioner.
• Gyan Prakash Shrivastava for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank. The wife of the petitioner suffered from benchmark disability as defined under section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The petitioner was the caregiver of his wife. The Respondent Bank transferred the petitioner from the Raniganj Branch, District Pratapgarh (Varanasi Region), to the Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Rajkot.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned transfer order was violative of the mandate of the Disabilities Act, 2016, and he was entitled to exemption from transfer under the said Act, as per the Office Memorandum dated 8-10-2018 issued by the Government of India and the Bank circular dated 28-6-2022.

It was noted that the petitioner’s requests for transfers had been regularly accommodated by the Bank, and the petitioner was provided with care as a caregiver to the greatest extent possible. Further, the Bank had rightly examined the extent of disability suffered by the wife of the petitioner.

Further, even though she suffered from disability, she had been discharging her functions as an Assistant Teacher independently and without blemish. The Respondent bank had also accorded appropriate attention to the institutional requirements of transferring the petitioner in the overall interests of the institution and the career profile of the petitioner.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that, in these facts and circumstances, the transfer of the petitioner did not fall in the category of routine/rotational transfer and disentitled him to claim exemption under the transfer policy.

The High Court held that the impugned transfer order was consistent with the provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2016, the Government of India Office Memorandum, and the Bank’s circular containing the transfer policy, and that the conduct of the employer/respondent Bank satisfied the test of ‘reasonable accommodation’ to protect the interests of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned transfer order was not liable to be interfered with.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India [2022] 6 taxmann.com 742 (Allahabad) (para 52) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Neeraj Chaturvedi v. Central Bank of India [2022] 6 taxmann.com 742 (Allahabad) (para 52).