On 14th August 2025, the Calcutta High Court delivered a landmark judgment concerning Anirban Pal vs. Punjab National Respondent & Ors., emphasizing the binding nature of disability-related accommodations under both statutory law and internal policy. The case revolves around Anirban Pal, a bank officer who suffered 70% disability following a motor accident in 2015 and faced administrative hurdles in obtaining a posting suitable to his condition despite being promoted.
The petitioner joined the respondent in October 2005, initially posted at the Head Office, Delhi. In 2015, while posted as a Scale-III officer in Kolkata, he sustained serious injuries resulting in 70% disability. During the 2016 promotion cycle, petitioner then refrained from participating due to fear of transfer, even though two colleagues with disabilities were promoted locally. In 2018, he participated in the Scale-IV promotion process and successfully cleared it. Upon promotion, he was transferred to Patna, where he faced significant difficulties due to his disability and absence of family support. He submitted representations on 8th October 2018 and 24th November 2018 requesting retention in Kolkata, but the respondent rejected these requests.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint with the Chief Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which issued an interim direction on 6th December 2018 for the respondent to consider his claim. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a third representation seeking reversion to Scale-III, which the respondent accepted on 29th December 2018, imposing a two-year bar on promotion. Later, his request for restoration to Scale-IV in Kolkata was declined on 30th May 2020, prompting the present writ petition.
The petitioner contended that his reversion was coerced due to compelling circumstances and not voluntary. He cited the respondent’s transfer policy of 2015 and the Disabilities Act as binding instruments requiring reasonable accommodation. He argued that the delay in filing the petition was excusable due to the COVID-19 suspension of limitation and personal bereavements, including the death of close family members. The petitioner relied on precedent judgments, including Shri Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University, to assert that submissions made under duress cannot bind the petitioner. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the petition was time-barred, the reversion was voluntary, and no statutory violation occurred. It contended that the Chief Commissioner’s directions were advisory and that there was no discrimination against the petitioner. The Respondent further submitted that relief granted beyond the pleadings, including directions for disciplinary enquiry, was legally impermissible, relying on judgments such as C.V. Satheeshchandran vs. UCO Respondent to support the notion of voluntary reversion.
The Calcutta High Court observed that the respondent failed to accommodate the petitioner’s disability-related needs in Kolkata and that the reversion applications were submitted under compelling circumstances, meaning the petitioner could not be considered to have acted voluntarily. The Court also held that the delay in filing the petition was excusable in light of the COVID-19 limitation suspension and personal hardships. It emphasized that internal Respondent policies and statutory provisions under the Disabilities Act are binding and enforceable, requiring reasonable accommodation for disabled employees.
The Court in finality, directed the restoration of the petitioner to Scale-IV in Kolkata, highlighting the obligation of employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. It underscored that employees cannot be penalized for disability-related limitations and reinforced principles of equality, fairness, and non-discrimination in employment. The remaining portions of the order of the Ld. Single Judge were upheld and no costs were imposed.
Citations:
C.V. Satheeshchandran vs. UCO ( 2008) 2 SCC 653
Shri Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University,(1976) 1 SCC 311
Counsels Appearing in the Case:
For the Petitioner: Adv. Srijib Chakraborty
For the Respondent PNB : Adv Saptansu Basu
