By V Anilkumar, General Secretary
An institution operating under the public sector has a fundamental duty to remain impartial and accountable to all its stakeholders. Upholding the rule of law is essential, not only for delivering services equitably, but also for setting a benchmark for private enterprises. Public sector banks (PSBs), in particular, are expected to lead by example, demonstrating how fair and non-discriminatory treatment fosters trust and harmony in society.
At a time when public institutions are increasingly expected to uphold principles of transparency, fairness, and consistency, it is regrettable that our bank, despite having a well-defined transfer policy for the clerical cadre, has failed to implement proper mechanism effectively. The core issue lies in the absence of a transparent, online system to manage transfers of employees within the circles. This systemic gap has led to widespread dissatisfaction and growing resentment among clerical employees nationwide.
Clerical staff often find themselves subject to arbitrary decisions, with transfers carried out without clear, objective criteria. This fosters perceptions of favouritism, bias, and unequal treatment. While it is acknowledged that transfers fall within the scope of managerial prerogative and can be justified on administrative grounds, this discretion should not override established policies. When more than half of the transfer orders in a given list are found to be in violation of the prevailing policy, it can no longer be deemed as administrative necessity, it becomes an act of discrimination against a specific group of employees.
Such actions raise legitimate questions about the intent behind the decisions and point to possible mala fide actions or deliberate circumvention of policy and statutory norms.
In a significant judgment, Hon’ble Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court rightly observed “Administrative exigency cannot be used as a shield to bypass statutory obligations or infringe upon the rights of employees safeguarded by law.” This judgment reinforces a critical principle: management discretion must function within the legal and ethical limits prescribed by policy and law
While we fully acknowledge that many HR managers act in accordance with the values and standards of the bank, and deserve appreciation for their fair conduct, it is equally important to address and expose those who act in clear violation of policy and ethics. It is the responsibility of a conscientious trade union to highlight such practices and seek redress through proper legal and institutional channels.
The issue of transfers in PSBs has become so pronounced that the Department of Financial Services (DFS), Government of India, has recently directed all public sector banks including SBI to implement a transparent online transfer portal. Such a portal would allow employees to submit transfer requests and track their status, ensuring accountability and preventing arbitrary decision making. Unfortunately, despite this directive, our bank has not taken any concrete steps towards implementation, further fuelling the prevailing discontent.
Additionally, a related concern is the posting of Cash-in-Charge duties. As per the existing transfer policy, all Special Associates and Chief Associates should be assigned to this role. Let us take Kerala Circle for example. There are 1,222 branches but only 386 Chief Associates and 275 Special Associates available. Even if all eligible are assigned to Cash-in-Charge roles, 561 branches would still lack qualified personnel, resulting in the need for officiating arrangements.
Since the officiating role attracts a substantial allowance, the process of assigning these posts must be handled with the utmost transparency. At present, these roles are allocated based on branch-level seniority, a method that is unscientific and highly susceptible to manipulation. For example, strategic transfers can be arranged to place favoured employees in branches where the can benefit from the allowance, while senior and eligible employees may be deliberately transferred out, denying them the opportunity.
Because public funds are involved in paying these allowances, the process must be transparent, equitable, and aligned with policy. If the policy mandates that only Special or Chief Associates should hold Cash-in-Charge posts, the bank must ensure that adequate manpower is made available. If officiating becomes necessary, a transparent and uniform policy must be established and followed strictly.
The absence of a structured, transparent mechanism for managing the officiating Cash-in-Charge positions is not just a procedural oversight, it is a systemic failure that raises serious concerns about favouritism, misuse of power, and lack of sustainability in human resource management.
As a premier public sector institution, our bank must set high standards in its human resource practices. Transparency in employee transfers is not a mere administrative requirement, it is about respecting employee dignity, promoting trust, and ensuring fairness across the organization.
The introduction of a uniform, online transparent transfer mechanism is not just a demand, it is a necessity. If these issues remain unaddressed, the growing unrest among clerical staff may not only affect internal morale, but also the bank’s public image as an equitable and employee-friendly workplace.
It is time for the management to act with sincerity and vision, by upholding its own policies, honouring the principles of justice, and reinforcing the values that a public institution is meant to embody.
