Why Calcutta High Court denied 100% visually impaired SBI employee’s transfer plea to join blind wife, infant in Delhi
The Calcutta High Court was hearing the plea of a junior associate in SBI, seeking directions to allow transfer of his to Delhi, where his wife is currently working.
The Calcutta High Court was hearing the plea of a 100 per cent blind SBI employee who prayed for transfer to join his visually impaired wife in Delhi. (AI-generated image) SBI news: The Calcutta High Court recently denied the transfer plea of a 100 per cent visually impaired SBI employee seeking posting near his blind wife and infant child. The court referred to the bank’s recruitment policy, which specifically barred such transfers for junior associates.
Justice Amrita Sinha was hearing the plea of Sameer Khan, a junior associate in the State Bank of India (SBI), seeking directions to allow transfer of his to Delhi, where his wife is currently working.
“The bank has a specific recruitment policy and guidelines for dealing with prayer for the transfer of persons with disabilities. The bank has applied the same and has found that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. The court does not find any error on the part of the bank,” the May 15 order read.
Justice Amrita Sinha noted that the recruitment notice pursuant to which the petitioner applied for the job clearly disclosed the non-availability of the transfer policy.
Aware of non-transfer rules
- The high court noted that the recruitment notice pursuant to which the petitioner applied for the job clearly disclosed the non-availability of the transfer policy.
- The court clarified that by accepting such a position, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and, on being successful in the same, was recruited into the SBI bank.
- The court further added that there may have been a change in the circumstances of the petitioner, which has caused the petitioner to file an application seeking transfer.
- However, the court clarified that the petitioner, being aware of the fact that the transfer policy is not applicable in respect of junior associates, has prayed for transfer.
‘I am sole caregiver of family’
It was placed on record that the petitioner is a one-hundred per cent blind person. He applied for an appointment in the Kolkata circle in response to the recruitment notice published by the State Bank of India for the recruitment of junior associates.
It was further submitted that Khan is originally from Uttar Pradesh. It was added that the recruitment notice clearly mentioned in bold letters that ‘there is no provision for inter-circle transfer/inter-state transfer for junior associates to be recruited’.
The petitioner allegedly accepted the terms and conditions of the recruitment notice and participated in the recruitment process. He was successful in the same, and subsequently, he got an appointment in the year 2022.
The petitioner thereafter got married to a lady who is also 100 per cent blind. The couple has been blessed with a baby. The wife of the petitioner has a job in Delhi, and she has shifted over there along with the child, who is currently one year old.
The petitioner submitted that he is the sole caregiver of his wife, who is a disabled lady.
The petitioner then requested a transfer. The prayer of the petitioner was considered by the SBI bank, and by a communication dated December 22, 2025, he was informed that the recruitment notice clearly mentioned the non-availability of the transfer provision of the junior associates.
The petitioner was informed by the SBI bank that they have a well-defined transfer policy for persons with disabilities and consistently adopt a compassionate approach. It was added that his request would be considered favourably in future.
However, the request was finally turned down by the SBI bank by a communication dated December 30, 2025, reiterating the non-availability of the transfer provision.
It was further submitted that the petitioner applied before the court of the chief commissioner for persons with disabilities (divyangjan) under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. The said complaint was heard by the commissioner, and upon contested hearing, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected.
He suppressed material fact
Advocate Subrata Kumar Sinha, representing the SBI bank, opposed the prayer and submission of the petitioner.
It was submitted that the recruitment notice pursuant to which the petitioner applied clearly mentioned in bold letters that ‘there is no provision for inter-circle transfer/inter-state transfer for junior associates to be recruited’.
It was submitted that the SBI bank follows the transfer guidelines in respect of persons with disabilities, but in respect of this particular post, there is no provision for transfer.
It was submitted that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact of dismissal of the complaint before the commissioner in March 2026 and filed the instant writ petition in April 2026.
It was submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of the material fact.
Relying on guidelines by Centre
Appearing for Khan, advocate Chittapriya Ghosh relied on the transfer/posting of employees who are caregivers of disabled dependents, considering the relevant clause of the same published by the government of India.
It was submitted that a direction may be passed upon the SBI bank to consider his case, relying on the guidelines.
Share
