Introduction:
The Calcutta High Court in a significant ruling on August 14, 2025, reaffirmed the binding nature of policies framed for the benefit of persons with disabilities, particularly when such policies are rooted in international obligations and statutory provisions. The division bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De delivered its judgment in Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (MAT 1380 of 2024 & MAT 1381 of 2024, IA No. CAN 2 of 2024), a case that revolved around the rights of a disabled employee who sought justice against the alleged denial of his rightful posting benefits after promotion. The judgment not only addressed the interplay between delay in filing writ petitions and the entitlement of disabled persons under statutory policies but also reinforced India’s commitment as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). At the heart of the case was the petitioner’s claim that he was compelled to seek reversion from his promotion due to the employer’s failure to provide a posting at Kolkata in accordance with the disability policy, despite his 70% disability that made his posting in Patna extremely difficult.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, Anirban Pal, through his counsel, argued that his inability to approach the Court earlier was not intentional or negligent but was due to extraordinary circumstances. After he sought reversion from his promotion owing to his health condition and lack of a supportive environment at Patna, the Covid-19 pandemic intervened, disrupting normal court proceedings and mobility between 15 March 2020 and 28 February 2022. This, he submitted, explained the delay of nearly three years in filing the writ petition.
On the substantive issue, the petitioner contended that the policy of the bank regarding transfers and postings of disabled employees was binding in nature since it was framed pursuant to the enabling provisions of the Disabilities Act, 2005. He further emphasized that such policies are not mere guidelines but carry statutory and constitutional weight when intended to protect the rights of disabled persons. The petitioner submitted that his applications for reversion should not be construed as voluntary acts, but rather as compelled measures, taken because he was left with no alternative in the face of unbearable living conditions in Patna owing to his disability. With 70% disability, he found it nearly impossible to sustain himself physically and mentally in an environment lacking the support system available in Kolkata.
The petitioner also argued that the employer failed to post him in Kolkata, despite a binding policy that recognized his preferential right to be stationed there. No suitable officer was deputed to Kolkata, nor was any valid reason provided by the bank for denying him his legitimate posting. The denial of such a benefit, he claimed, was contrary to the very spirit of the policy, the Disabilities Act, and India’s international commitments under the UNCRPD. He relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Net Ram Yadav, where it was categorically held that policies framed for the benefit of disabled persons under statutory or international obligations cannot be treated as non-binding.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
On the other side, Punjab National Bank, represented by its counsel, raised strong objections to the maintainability of the petition. The primary ground advanced by the respondents was that the petition suffered from an inordinate delay of three years. They argued that the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches, as justice delayed in such matters often undermines the cause of effective service jurisprudence.
The respondents further pointed out that the petitioner had failed to avail himself of two subsequent promotional opportunities, which, in their view, showed a lack of diligence. They asserted that once he sought reversion from his promotion, he could not later claim the benefits associated with that promotion, including a posting of his choice. According to the respondents, the petitioner voluntarily sought reversion and therefore could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
They also submitted that in the writ petition, no allegations of mala fides were made against the respondents, nor was there any pleading regarding the violation of statutory provisions. The case, at best, reflected a grievance over the violation of administrative guidelines or circulars, which, as per their argument, could not be enforced through a writ of mandamus. The bank further challenged the Single Judge’s adverse observations against its officers, arguing that once the petition was dismissed for delay, it was not open to the court to delve into the merits, impose costs, or direct a disciplinary inquiry.
The Court’s Judgment:
The division bench of the Calcutta High Court carefully examined the rival contentions and proceeded to address both the preliminary objection regarding delay and the substantive rights of the petitioner under the disability policy.
On the issue of delay, the Court observed that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the reasons for not approaching the Court earlier. The Covid-19 pandemic, which paralyzed normal functioning of institutions across the country, was a valid and acceptable justification. Moreover, the employer itself had not raised objections regarding delay either before the Single Judge or during the appellate proceedings. Therefore, the bench concluded that delay could not be a ground to deny relief to the petitioner.
Turning to the substantive rights, the Court underscored that while ordinarily courts refrain from interfering in transfer or posting matters merely due to breach of policy guidelines, the present case was distinct. This was because the policy in question was framed under the Disabilities Act of 2005, in furtherance of India’s obligations as a signatory to the UNCRPD. Such policies, the Court held, are not mere administrative conveniences but binding instruments carrying statutory and constitutional significance. Persons with disabilities are entitled to the protection of equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and any attempt to dilute these protections would amount to discrimination.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Net Ram Yadav, which categorically held that policies framed to benefit disabled persons under statutory or international obligations carry binding force. Applying this principle, the bench rejected the bank’s contention that the disability policy was non-binding.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had a clear preferential right to be posted in Kolkata as per the policy. Despite this, no valid reason was provided by the bank for not accommodating him, nor was any suitable officer deputed to Kolkata. The petitioner’s condition of 70% disability made his life in Patna untenable, and after waiting for a reasonable period for redress, he had no option but to seek reversion. Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the reversion could not be treated as voluntary. Consequently, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of his posting at Kolkata as a Scale IV Officer.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Single Judge was partly set aside. While the dismissal of the petition on grounds of delay was overturned, the bench also clarified that the observations regarding disciplinary proceedings against bank officers required reconsideration. The Court thus struck a balance by granting the petitioner his legitimate rights without unnecessarily prejudicing the institution.
This judgment not only provided relief to the petitioner but also strengthened the legal framework protecting disabled employees in India. By emphasizing the binding nature of disability-related policies framed under statutory and international obligations, the Calcutta High Court reinforced the principle that disabled persons cannot be denied their entitlements on technical grounds. The ruling stands as an important precedent ensuring that institutions respect the dignity, rights, and equality of persons with disabilities.