Appeal allowed — ruling in favour of Smt. Surabhi Agarwal (Appellant)
In Short
Smt. Surabhi Agarwal, a bank officer who spent 10 years in Lucknow, was ordered to transfer to Varanasi. She asked for an exemption because she is raising her 7-year-old child alone while fighting a bitter divorce battle in court. The bank rejected her request simply by writing "No," but the High Court stepped in, set aside the rejection, and ordered the bank to properly reconsider her case within one week.
The Parties
Party A: Smt. Surabhi Agarwal
Party B: Union Bank of India through its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer and others
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. Paavan Awasthi, Learned Advocate Ms. Sunanda Krishna
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhor Chandra
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, Hon'ble Justice Jaspreet Singh
What the Case Was About
Smt. Surabhi Agarwal worked as an officer at Union Bank of India and had been posted in Lucknow for 10 years. The bank decided to transfer her to Varanasi. Surabhi objected to this transfer, explaining that she was dealing with ongoing court cases against her husband and was raising her 7-year-old child entirely by herself. She pointed to a specific rule in the bank's transfer policy that protects "single parents" from being moved away until their child turns 10 years old.
Because the bank's online computer system only had options for "death of spouse" or "divorce" to apply as a single parent, Surabhi ticked the death option by mistake while clearly writing details about her ongoing marriage disputes. The bank rejected her request without giving any proper reasons, saying only "No." A single judge of the high court agreed with the bank, leading Surabhi to file this special appeal.
Judgment Date
24 October 2026
The Outcome
The court ruled in favour of the appellant, allowing her appeal and setting aside the previous orders. The court sent the matter back to the bank's appeal committee to look at her case again and make a proper, reasoned decision within a week.
What the Court Looked At
- The court noted that Surabhi Agarwal had spent 10 years at Lucknow and was ordered to transfer to Varanasi due to bank service needs.
- The court observed that the bank's transfer policy gives protection to single parents raising children under 10 years old.
- The court found that the bank's online form forced Surabhi to select "death of spouse" because it did not have a category for active matrimonial court battles.
- The court pointed out that the bank's appeal committee gave a lazy, one-word rejection ("No") without writing down any reasons.
- The court ruled that officials cannot use court arguments to fix a bad, blank order that had no written reasons in the first place.
"Once the authorities were dealing with the appeals made by the officers/employees of the Bank in relation to the transfers/grievances, passing of the order of such nature, wherein it cannot be deciphered as to on what count the appeal has been rejected, cannot be countenanced."
What This Means For You
If your employer has rules that protect single parents from transfers, you must make sure your actual life situation fits the policy, but employers cannot ignore your genuine claims just because their computer software is poorly designed. Surabhi got into trouble because the bank's online portal lacked a button for separated parents fighting court cases, forcing her to pick an incorrect label just to make her application go through. The court made it clear that companies must genuinely read and consider personal hardships instead of handing out lazy, blank rejections. If you are stuck in a workplace dispute where your valid family hardship is being brushed aside by a bureaucratic system, Setback Solutions can help you understand your options and coordinate your next steps with clear, plain-language guidance.
You Still Have Options
Dealing with an unfair workplace transfer or fighting a rigid company policy while trying to raise a child alone can feel exhausting and overwhelming. If your genuine hardship application was rejected with a vague, blank response or if you are stuck facing a similar bureaucratic wall, remember that it is not the end of the road. You can still explore getting a second opinion, reviewing your paperwork, or seeking non-judicial guidance on how to present your case properly. Reach out to Setback Solutions today for help understanding your options and coordinating the next step. Please note that Setback Solutions is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or guarantee any specific legal outcome, but we are here to offer plain-language help when you need it most.