The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the transfer of a UCO Bank officer who was posted nearly 1,000 kilometres away despite being the sole caregiver of his younger brother, who was wholly dependent on him and suffering from Thalassemia with 75% permanent disability. The Court held that the bank was required to consider its own Equal Opportunity Policy before transferring the employee.
“Transferring a care-giver of a person suffering from Thalassemia, who requires blood transfusion on every 15-20 days, to a place 1000 KMs away, where no such facility or family support is available, without any reasonable consideration, is not only arbitrary but also inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes right to health and right to live with dignity of both the disabled dependent and the petitioner.”
Rahul Agrawal, a Manager (Scale-II) with UCO Bank, was transferred from Baneti Branch in Jaipur Zone to Bhadwa Branch in Ahmedabad Zone through an order dated May 16, 2026. He challenged the transfer after the bank rejected his request for cancellation on September 8, 2026.
Agrawal told the Court that his younger brother, Ashish Kumar Agrawal, has Thalassemia and 75% permanent physical disability. According to the record, his brother depends entirely on him for regular blood transfusions, medicines, personal care and financial support. The dependency was also recorded in the bank's service records.
The bank argued that Agrawal had already remained posted in the Jaipur Zone for around eight years and that his transfer followed his promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II. It maintained that the transfer was made due to administrative requirements.
The Court also noted that UCO Bank had formulated the Equal Opportunity Policy for 2024-27 in compliance with Section 21 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The policy provides specific safeguards concerning the transfer and posting of persons with disabilities and employees who act as caregivers for persons with disabilities.
The Court observed:
"The Special Policy framed by the respondent-Bank is, therefore, not an act of charity but a statutory obligation. It has a binding force. The respondent-Bank cannot be allowed to frame a policy for public display and then act contrary to it."
The Court further found that the bank's rejection order did not explain why the special policy was not considered. It held that the transfer order had been issued mechanically without considering the disability certificate, the employee's caregiving responsibility or the relevant provisions of the bank's policy.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the May 16, 2026 transfer order. It directed UCO Bank to allow Agrawal to continue at his present posting until his case is reconsidered under Clause 7(V) and 7(VI) of the Equal Opportunity Policy, keeping his brother's medical condition and dependency in view. The bank was also given liberty to transfer him elsewhere, subject to vacancy, administrative requirements and a reasoned order.
Case Title: Rahul Agrawal v. UCO Bank & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18831/2026
Judge: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Decision Date: October 5, 2026
