Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed against the refusal by Indian Overseas Bank (‘the Bank’) to let the petitioner forego her promotion and transfer in order to take care of her disabled son, the Division Bench of Bharati Dangre* and Ashwin D. Bhobhe, JJ., quashed the petitioner’s promotion order and the Bank’s refusal of the petitioner’s request. The Court rebuked the Bank for change in its stance before the Court and apathetic approach towards the petitioner, who was making a sacrifice to take care of her disabled son and directed it to pay Rs 25,000 to the National Association for the Blind within four weeks.
Background
The petitioner was an employee of the Bank who was promoted to Assistant Manager and transferred to Chennai. However, the petitioner wanted to stay in Mumbai to take care of her 10-year-old child who was 95 percent visually impaired and unable to lead his day-to-day life on his own. The petitioner made a representation to the Bank requesting the cancellation of her promotion and bringing her back to Mumbai which they rejected. Aggrieved, she filed the present petition.
As per the last order of this Court dated 18-12-2024, the Bank agreed to permit the petitioner to work in Mumbai with effect from 01-01-2025, subject to a representation that she would forego her promotion.
Analysis
The Court noted that despite the Bank agreeing to concede to the request of the petitioner on the last date, it was now denying the same. The Court was informed that pursuant to the last order dated 18-12-2024, the Bank told the petitioner that since she had accepted the promotion, the process had become irrevocable as per the existing guidelines. The Court stated that such a change in stance from the Bank annihilated the very spirit of it being an ideal employer, particularly when what the employee was seeking was only retention in Mumbai.
The Court rejected the argument of the Bank that Chennai would be a better place for the petitioner’s son, stating that the mother could take a better decision for her child, and she would not rely upon the decision of a stranger, specifically those at the helm of affairs of the Bank. The Court said that as a mother, the petitioner understood the difficulties posed by her child and was conscious of the arduous task of shifting him to a new environment. The Court held that there was no fault in the decision taken by the petitioner as she was expected to act in the better interest and welfare of her child.
Regarding the contention that the petitioner’s request could not be accepted since there was no prevailing policy in that regard, the Court stated that for consideration of a situation like this, the lack of a policy was not an impediment but rather a lack of sympathetic approach of the employer.
The Court stated that it was not moved by the arguments advanced by the Bank since the Bank was nowhere going to be impacted if the petitioner was brought back to the post of Clerk. The Court also noted that the petitioner had rendered 13 years of service with an unbleached record.
The Court was informed that the petitioner had joined at Chennai but was facing difficulties. The Court stated that it was not informed about any administrative difficulty in permitting the petitioner to do so, as the Bank would find some other employee to fill up the said promotional post of the Assistant Manager in Chennai, but a child would not find a substitute for his mother. However, the Court also stated that it was conscious of the difficulty faced by an employer in reverting an employee to their old post after they had already availed the promotion and joined the new post.
The Court held that it would step in and come to the rescue of the petitioner while clarifying that she would not stake her claim on the promotional post, but in the future, if she desired and was ready to take up the post of Assistant Manager, she could appear for the departmental examination for promotion. The Court added that it was making this exception on purely humanitarian grounds. An employee, who is the focal point of any administration, deserved empathy, especially, since the petitioner was also suffering from an ailment.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court set aside the two communications by the Bank refusing the petitioner’s reversal to the post of Clerk as well as her promotion order and directed that she be permitted to join as a clerk in Mumbai from 01-01-2025. The Court further directed that:
-
The petitioner shall continue to work on her erstwhile post of Clerk in the same branch from where she was promoted and shall not be deprived of any monetary benefit which she had availed, when she took up the promotional post including any TA/DA.
-
The petitioner shall not be put to any adverse action in her service career.
Lastly, the Court stated the Bank’s approach lacked human sensitivity since, despite the last order dated 18-12-2024, the Bank chose to reject her representation on the ground that there is no power to reverse her promotion. Noting this, the Court directed that a cost of Rs 25,000 be paid to the National Association for the Blind by the Bank within four weeks.
[Bharti Neeraj Chaourasiya v. Indian Overseas Bank, Writ Petition No. 14419 of 2024, decided on 03-01-2025]
*Judgement authored by Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Hamza Lakdawala, Mohammed Najmi, Racheeta Chawla, Maria Najmi, and Mohammed Najmi
For the respondent: Priyanka K, Rishi Bekal, and B. K. Ahsok
