Disabled Persons Entitled To Posting At Same Place Even After Promotion Under Policy Framed Pursuant To International Obligations: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De has held that a policy mandating that disabled persons remain posted at the same place even after promotion is binding, especially when framed under international obligations. A disabled person cannot be denied the benefit of such a policy even if reversion is sought by him under compelling circumstances.

The present intra-court appeals have been filed against an order of the Single Judge by which the petitioner's petition was dismissed due to delay of 3 years in challenging the Bank's refusal to promote the petitioner and because he had not availed of two promotional opportunities. The Bank also challenges the adverse remarks passed against it, the directive to grant an increment to the petitioner and order passed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its officers.

The Petitioner submitted that he could not approach the Court by filing writ petition because after his reversion the Covid era came which remained in force between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

It was further argued that policy relating to transfer/posting is binding in nature. More so, when the policy is made pursuant to an enabling provision under the Disabilities Act of 2005.

It was further submitted that a conjoint reading of applications seeking reversion will show that the petitioner had to submit such applications having left with no option. With 70 per cent disability, he was not able to keep his body and soul together at Patna.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and learned Single Judge has rightly not granted relief to petitioner because of such delay.

It was further contended that in the entire petition, no mala fides are alleged against any respondents. No violation of any statutory provision is pleaded. Because of violation of guidelines/circulars, no writ of mandamus can be issued.

It was also argued that after having formed the opinion that petition suffers from delay, it was not open to Single Judge to give any finding on merits, impose cost and issue directions for holding disciplinary enquiry.

The court observed that the delay has sufficiently been explained by the petitioner. Since the employer did not raise objections with respect to delay before the Single Judge or in the appeal, the case cannot be dismissed on this ground. In the rejection order passed by the Bank, the debarment clause of its promotional policy was cited which prevented the petitioner from participating in future promotions. This importance was overlooked by the Single Judge. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for non-participation in the subsequent promotions and relief cannot be denied if he is otherwise entitled to it.

It further observed that generally courts refrain from interfering in transfer matters merely on breach of policy or guidelines, this case is different as the policy in the present case stems from the Disability Act. As a signatory to the UNCRPD, India is obligated to frame policies and guidelines which benefit the persons with disabilities. The disabled are also entitled to equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in Net Ram Yadav held that policies and guidelines framed to benefit the disabled persons under statutory or international obligations carry binding force. Therefore, the bank's argument that such a policy is not binding cannot be accepted.

It further observed that the petitioner had a preferential right to be posted at Kolkata under the binding departmental policy. Despite this, no suitable officer was posted at Kolkata and no valid reason was tendered for denying the petitioner a posting at Kolkata after promotion. He found it difficult to live in Patna due to his 70% disability and after waiting for a reasonable period of time for redress he sought reversion. Considering these circumstances, the reversion cannot be considered voluntary. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the legitimate benefit of a posting at Kolkata as a Scale IV Officer.

Accordingly, the impugned order was partly set aside.

Case Title: ANIRBAN PAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

Case Number: MAT 1380 OF 2024 & MAT 1381 OF 2024 IA NO. CAN 2 OF 2024

Judgment Date: 14.08/2025

For the Appellant : Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv., Ms. Rupsa Sreemani

For the Respondent:Adv. ,Mr. Saptansu Basu, Adv. Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order