Case against bank for discrimination and not following dfs guidelines

877 votes

Based on the facts stated, you appear to have grounds to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the Bank's transfer policy provides for repatriation after three years on a FIFO basis, repeated rejection of your requests without assigning reasons may be challenged as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. Refusal to disclose comparative transfer data under the RTI Act can also be questioned through the appropriate appellate mechanism. You may seek directions for a reasoned decision on your transfer request, production of relevant records, and interim protection against any retaliatory transfer pending disposal of the writ petition. The maintainability and strength of the petition will depend on the transfer policy, your representations, RTI records, and other supporting documents. A detailed examination of these documents is advisable before initiating proceedings.

Advocate Madhvi Chopra LawRato

519 votes

For properly assessing the matter, we need to peruse all the documents in support of your case and then only we will be able to guide you on the most effective remedy for obtaining relief. Therefore, you can share the documents with us for enabling us to assist you effectively

Advocate Alankrit Bhatnagar  LawRato

563 votes

From the facts stated, you appear to have a prima facie case for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, particularly if the Bank is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12. Courts generally do not interfere with transfer matters; however, interference is warranted where the action is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, or in violation of the employer’s own transfer policy. If the Bank’s transfer policy mandates repatriation after three years on a FIFO basis and you have remained outside your domicile since 2018 despite repeated representations, cancellation of your requests without assigning reasons may be challenged as arbitrary. The refusal to furnish comparative transfer data under the RTI Act, coupled with the prolonged pendency of your complaint before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the alleged non-compliance with DFS guidelines on transparency, may further strengthen your challenge if supported by documentary evidence. Subject to examination of the relevant records, you may seek a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to consider your repatriation in accordance with its policy and also pray for interim protection against any retaliatory transfer during the pendency of the proceedings. Ensure that all transfer requests, rejection communications, RTI replies, the transfer policy, DFS guidelines, and NCSC records are placed before the Court, as these documents will be crucial to establish arbitrariness and violation of policy.

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma LawRato

703 votes

Hi your case is very good for invoking writ jurisdiction I believe you have all papers so file your writ in the high court concerned very likely hood of getting favourable direction should mostly be over 4-5 dates

Advocate Madhu Tyagi LawRato

978 votes

Hello, I have an extensive practice in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. Please reach out and let me know when we can discuss. We can definitely challenge the action of the employer and seek interim stay of the transfer.

Advocate Prerna Robin LawRato