Patna High Court
Pooja KumariversusThe State Bank of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that the interlocutory application is separate from the transfer matter and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit her posting choices as per the bank’s policy.
Summary
The petitioner, a bank employee, filed a writ petition challenging her transfer and an interlocutory application seeking to quash a notice ordering her to report for duty within 30 days. The bank argued that the transfer issue and the notice were distinct matters and that the interlocutory application should be rejected. The court examined the earlier orders in C.W.J.C. No. 10090 of 2025 and M.J.C. No. 2825 of 2025, noting that the bank had already granted the petitioner and her husband three posting choices and that the petitioner had not complied with the earlier direction. The court held that the interlocutory application could not be tested in the transfer matter and declined to interfere with the bank’s policy, dismissing the writ petition and directing the petitioner to submit her posting choices. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner should not be rigid and must cooperate with the bank’s posting options.
Issues considered
- Whether the interlocutory application seeking to quash the notice dated 05.02.2026 can be merged with the main writ petition challenging the transfer.
- Whether the court should interfere with the bank’s decision to grant three posting choices to the petitioner and her husband.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief for alleged unauthorized absence and coercive action by the bank.
- Whether the earlier order directing the bank to reconsider the petitioner’s claim has been complied with.
Subjects
- transfer
- posting
- bank employee
- unauthorized absence
- interlocutory application
- quashing notice
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3316 of 2026
======================================================
Pooja Kumari Daughter of Raj Kumar Singh and Wife of Ravi Ranjan Kumar,
Resident of Vill- Galchaur, P.S- Krishnagarh, Dist- Bhojpur (Ara), presently
residing at Flat No.-406, Block-B, Patliputra Heritage Apartment, Gandhi
Nagar, Near Patliputra Station, P.S- Digha, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through the Chairman, State Bank of India,
Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
3. The General Manager (North Bihar Network), State Bank of India, Local
Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-1.
4. The Deputy General Manager and Circle Development Officer, State Bank
of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
5. The Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Local Head
Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
6. The Chief Manager (IR), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001.
7. The Chief Manager (LCPC), State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan,
Patna- 800001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Krishna Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Respondent-Bank.
Re:- I.A. No. 1 of 2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present interlocutory application has been filed for adding the
prayer in the main writ petition for quashing of the notice dated
05.02.2026 contained in Letter No. DGM(B&O)/HR/2004
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
2/9
(Annexure-P/15), issued under the signature of the Chief
Manager (HR & Admin), State Bank of India, whereby the
petitioner has been advised to report for duty within 30 days of
the date of notice failing which she will be deemed to have
voluntarily vacated her employment on the expiry of the notice.
Counsel further submits that the said notice is the consequential
effect of the decision which has been challenged in the present
writ petition. Therefore, he submits that this interlocutory
application be allowed and the prayer for quashing of the notice
dated 05.02.2026 be added in the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-
Bank, on the other hand, submits that by virtue of the present
writ petition, the petitioner has challenged her transfer, whereas,
by virtue of the I.A. No. 1 of 2026, the petitioner has challenged
the notice dated 05.02.2026 by which the petitioner has been
advised to report for duty, otherwise, stern action shall be taken.
Counsel submits that one is the notice which may resulted into
departmental proceeding or termination, whereas, the writ
petition is relating to transfer only. He submits that the subject
matter of the writ petition and the interlocutory application are
different. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have filed a separate
writ petition and this interlocutory application be rejected. In
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
3/9
addition to that, counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank
submits that this is the second writ petition for the same relief
as, in the earlier writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10090 of 2025
and in the M.J.C. No. 2825 of 2025, the transfer matter relating
to the petitioner has already been tested by the Hon’ble Court in
the writ as well as in the M.J.C petition.
3. After hearing the parties as well as upon perusal
of the prayers of the writ petition and the interlocutory
application, it transpires that the subject matter of the
interlocutory application and the writ petition are different. The
writ petition has been filed for challenging the transfer and
interlocutory application has been filed for challenging the
effect of the non-compliance of the order of transfer, even after
test made by this Hon’ble Court in the writ and in the M.J.C.
4. This Court is of the firm view that as per the
above mentioned facts and circumstances, the I.A. No. 1 of
2026 shall not be tested in the transfer matter, hence, this I.A.
No. 1 of 2026 stands rejected.
Re:- C.W.J.C. No. 3316 of 2026
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance
of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to the respondents
for the following relief/s:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
4/9
“I. For quashing of the order dated
30.07.2025 contained in letter number
HR/IR/998 signed by the Assistant General
Manager (HR), State Bank of India, Local
Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-
800001 whereby the petitioner has been
directed to submit any three choices in the
state of Jharkhand on transfer/for porting
and failing to do so within seven days
report at Administrative Office, Ranchi.
II. For quashing of the order dated
04.04.2025 contained in letter number
LCPC/AGM/2025-26/ issued under the
signature of the Assistant General Manager
(HR), State Bank of India, Local Head
Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001
whereby the petitioner was advised about
her transfer/posting to Ranchi Zone and
was relieved from LCPC, Patna on
04.04.2025.
III. For quashing the notice of unauthorized
absence as contained in letter number
DGM (B&O)/HR/1839 dated 02.01.2026
signed by the Chief Manager (HR &
Admin), Administrative Office, Ranchi.
IV. For a direction to the respondents to not
treat the period after 04.04.2025 as
unauthorized absence, particularly as the
absence has been caused because of illegal
act of the respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
5/9
V. For a direction to the respondents to
desist from taking any coercive action
during the pendency of this case.
VI. For any other relief or reliefs to which
the petitioner may be found entitled to in
the facts and circumstances of this case.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Hon’ble Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 10090 of 2025 which was allowed in favour of
the petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2025, in which, the writ
petition was disposed of directing the Respondent-Bank to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order
as early as possible within 30 days from the date of order.
Counsel submits that the order was passed within the stipulated
period, but the spirit of the order passed in the earlier writ
petition was not followed, therefore, the petitioner filed M.J.C.
No. 2825 of 2025 and vide order dated 06.02.2026, the contempt
proceeding was dropped with liberty to the petitioner to assail
the order passed by the Respondent-Bank. Counsel further
submits that the entire merit of the case has been discussed in
the earlier writ petition. But, even then, the spirit has not been
followed and the present writ petition has been filed only after
observation made by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
6/9
06.02.2026 passed in M.J.C. No. 2825 of 2025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-
Bank, on the other hand, submits that the order under challenge
is Annexure-P/1. In the said order, specific decision has been
taken by the Bank Authorities granting option to the petitioner
and her husband to provide choice of their posting at three
places. But, the petitioner who has not challenged the said order
of the writ petition before the Hon’ble L.P.A. Bench has again
moved before this Hon’ble Court with the same relief.
4. After hearing the parties and particularly upon
perusal of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier
writ i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10090 of 2025, its para 10 & 11 are very
much relevant which reads as under:-
“10. Taking into consideration the fact that
the respondent-Bank itself wrongly
transferred the petitioner way back in the
year 2021 and the said wrong done by the
Bank has been rectified by them after about
three and half years of her transfer. Further
taking into consideration the fact that in
between the petitioner, being a lady, got her
marriage with one employee of the bank
itself, who is posted at Patna, the guidelines
as mentioned hereinabove permit the spouse
to be posted at the place of posting of her
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
7/9
spouse or nearby place. Thus, on these
grounds, I am of the view that this petition
can be disposed of directing the respondent-
Bank to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order.
11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
The respondent-Bank is directed to
reconsider the claim of the petitioner and
pass a reasoned order as early as possible
within 30 days from today.”
4.1. It is also relevant to quote the para 5 & 7 of the
order passed in the M.J.C. No. 2825 of 2025, which reads as
under:-
“5. Having considered the submissions
advanced by learned Advocate for the
respective parties and taking note of the fact
that on representation of the petitioner, a
final order has been passed by the Assistant
General Manager of the State Bank of India.
This Court does not find any reason or
occasion to continue with the present
contempt proceeding, accordingly the same
stands closed.
7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty
to assail the afore-noted order by filing an
appropriate application before the
appropriate forum, if so advised”.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
8/9
4.2. This Court is also of the view to quote the
relevant para nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the impugned order dated
30.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1), which reads as under:-
“7. Keeping in mind the above facts, in
terms of Bank's policy, your request for
retention at Patna Centre cannot be
acceded to. However, in facts of your case,
you are once again accorded a chance to
submit any three choices of centres in state
of Jharkhand, which the Bank will consider
based on the availability of post and
administrative exigencies. Moreover, your
husband may also submit three choices of
centres in Bihar, which is nearby from the
place of your posting, and his request will
be considered by Bank compassionately,
subject to availability of post and
administrative exigencies.
8. Further, we advise to submit your
choices, which is convenient to both of you
but within the respective states, within
seven days of receipt of this letter. If you
choose not to avail options and to reply to
this letter within seven days, then you are
advised to report to Administrative Office,
Ranchi for your eventual posting.
9. This disposes of your representation
dated 14.07.2025, received at Local Head
Office, Patna Circle, Patna on
Patna High Court CWJC No.3316 of 2026 dt.10-03-2026
9/9
15.07.2025.”
5. This Court is of the firm view that the Bank
Authorities have rightly granted three choice of centres, both to
the petitioner and her husband, so that their nearest posting may
be made. It also transpires to this Court that there are many
places within the territory of State of Bihar and Jharkhand
which are completely adjacent and when the Bank has given a
categorical option to the petitioner as well as to her husband of
three choice of posting, then in such view of the matter, the
petitioner should not be rigid in this view.
6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere
in this matter. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed with
observation that the petitioner and her husband shall file their
choice of posting in the State of Bihar & Jharkhand and the
respondent authorities shall post them at the places which shall
be nearest to each other.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12/03/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…