Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Sujoy Paul* and Smita Das De, JJ., were hearing a matter wherein a bank officer with a locomotor disability (the petitioner), approached the Court after reverting from his promotion, as he could not accept a transfer to Patna and sought posting at Kolkata in accordance with the Punjab National Bank’s (‘PNB’) own policy of accommodating persons with disabilities. The petitioner alleged that the reversion was not voluntary but compelled by the circumstances and pressure.
Considering the petitioner’s grievances, the Court found that the petitioner could not be held responsible for not participating in the promotional process because of bar imposed by PNB. The Court emphasised that, since petitioner’s genuine request could not fetch any result, hence he sought reversion, therefore, such reversion could not be treated as ‘voluntary’ in nature. Therefore, the Court directed PNB to restore the petitioner’s promotion and post him to Kolkata office.
Background:
The petitioner joined PNB in October 2005 and worked in Delhi till January 2008. In 2015, he met with a motor accident, resulting in 70% disability. At that time, he was a Scale-III officer posted in United Bank of India, Kolkata (now Punjab National Bank). In 2016, he skipped the promotion process fearing transfer, though two disabled colleagues were promoted within Kolkata.
Accordingly, he participated in a promotion process of Scale-IV Grade and got promoted to a higher scale but was transferred to Zonal office at Patna from Kolkata despite a policy about accommodating the persons with disabilities at the same place subject to the administrative exigencies. He requested a posting in Kolkata citing medical and family difficulties.
The Authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘Disabilities Act’) issued interim direction and advised PNB to consider the claim of the petitioner and file a report. Upon rejection of his claim, he reluctantly sought reversion to his earlier post. PNB accepted the petitioner’s reversion request by order dated 29-12-2018, making it irrevocable and subject to a 2-year promotion debar. Later a petition was filed against the letter dated 30-05-2020 whereby his request for restoration for promotion and claim to continue as Scale-IV officer in Kolkata was rejected.
The petitioner submitted that he could not file the writ petition due to the Covid era (15-03-2020 to 28-02-2022), health issues and bereavement on account of death of his father, mother and father-in-law. He contended that the lack of human and fair treatment by PNB, led to his reversion request. It was further argued that PNB ignored its binding policy and orders from the Chief Commissioner, while also debarred him from applying for future promotions. It was under such compelling circumstances and pressure, he made the applications for reversion which by no stretch of imagination could be said to be voluntary.
PNB however contended that there was an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition, and the Single Judge had rightly not granted relief to the petitioner because of such delay. It was further alleged that the request for reversion was made by the petitioner voluntarily, and it could not be said to be a reversion under compulsion or threat, since in none of the representations made, the petitioner pleaded that he was seeking reversion because of any threat, pressure, or coercion on behalf of PNB.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court examined the question of delay and held that the delay could not be an absolute impediment as a rule of thumb, as it must be observed from the circumstances, including the Covid restrictions, during which the period was directed not to be counted for the purpose of counting limitation by a general order passed by the Supreme Court. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s inability to participate in the future promotion process could not be a reason to deprive him, because PNB itself made it crystal clear through a debar clause of the promotional policy.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner had a preferential right to be posted at Kolkata in view of the binding policy of the Department. The Court highlighted that a suitable and meritorious officer was not posted at Kolkata for reasons best known to the Department, since no justifiable reason was spelt out for not posting him on promotion at Kolkata despite the mandate ingrained in the guidelines. The Court further observed that the petitioner made efforts to work on promotional post at Patna but found it difficult and impossible to live alone at Patna with his 70 per cent disability and in such a compelling circumstance, he had no option but to seek reversion.
The Court emphasised that India, being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’), was obliged to make its statutes, rules, guidelines, circulars, etc., for the advantage of physically disabled persons. Moreover, the disabled were entitled to the fundamental right of equality flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court referred to Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 15 SCC 81 and V. K. Bhasin v. State Bank of Patiala1, wherein it was held that when a policy was made for the purpose of granting benefit to disabled persons under the Act or under the UNCRPD, the same would have a binding force. The Court, therefore, rejected PNB’s argument that the policy was not binding on them.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner had waited a sufficient time for redressal of his grievance by PNB, and since his genuine request could not fetch any result, he sought reversion, hence such reversion could not be treated as ‘voluntary’ in nature. The Court further observed that the petitioner sought reversion when his legitimate request for posting to Kolkata went in vain, and he found himself unable to function at Patna without any family support and with 70 per cent disability.
The Court concluded that the petitioner admittedly suffered from disability, had good performance in Kolkata, and since promotional posts were vacant there, PNB was not justified in posting him to Patna. The Court further noted that the petitioner did not voluntarily seek reversion but did so under compelling circumstances and thus could not be deprived of the legitimate benefit of posting at Kolkata as a Scale-IV officer.
The Court, thus set aside the rejection order and directed PNB to restore the promotion of petitioner within 45 days from the date of production of copy of the order as Scale-IV from the date of reversion on notional basis by posting him at Kolkata.
[Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6697, decided on 14-08-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sujoy Paul
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Srijib Chakraborty, Adv
For the Respondent: Rupsa Sreemani, Adv
For the PNB: Saptansu Basu, Adv, Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. LPA 74 of 2005, dt. 03-08-2005
