Reprehensible & Inhuman Conduct: Calcutta HC Directs Punjab National Bank To Pay ₹3L To Disabled Employee For Violating Its Transfer Policy
The Calcutta High Court directed the Punjab National Bank to pay Rs. 3 lakhs in costs for violating its transfer policies that provided for exemption from the transfer of disabled employees.
The Bench remarked that the disabled employee’s (petitioner) continuous request for reposting may have “ruffled misplaced egoistic feathers” of his superiors at Punjab National Bank, earlier known as United Bank of India.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha observed, “Given the reprehensible conduct on the part of the Bank as discussed hereinabove this Court is inclined to impose exemplary and penal costs on the Punjab National Bank formerly known as United Bank of India of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which shall be paid by the Bank to the writ petitioner.”
Advocate Srijib Chakraborty represented the petitioner, while Advocate Parna Roy Chowdhury appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner, who suffered from 70% disability, sought the restoration of promotion he forego in order to get transferred back to Calcutta from Patna. The petitioner was promoted by the Bank after which he was transferred, however, the Bank refused to restore the petitioner’s promotion from Scale III to Scale IV.
The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed the Bank to exempt the petitioner from the transfer under Section 20(3) and Section 75(1) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
“This is an unfortunate malaise that festers in hierarchies of Public Sector Bank and other bodies which has and continues to severely impact the man resources and impede the growth and wellbeing of an organization and its employees. Any special request from an employee out of the ordinary, even if supported by the Bank’s rules is look at with contempt and discomfort,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the delay of three years in approaching the Court extinguished the petitioner’s challenge to the refusal by the Bank to restore his promotion. Therefore, the Court did not interfere with the impugned order refusing to restore the petitioner’s promotion.
The Court stated, “It is quite possible that the petitioner must have been suffering substantial difficulties living alone even for a brief period in Patna. He must have been compelled to seek reversion to come back to Calcutta for better care and comfort. The bank has admittedly violated its own transfer policy in particular and the provisions of the Act of 2016 in generally morefully described and set out by the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities. The conduct of the bank was totally inhuman, in violation of its own Transfer Policy and defeated the object and purpose of the Act of 2016.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Srijib Chakraborty and Rupsa Sreemani
Respondents: Advocates Parna Roy Chowdhury and Payel Ghosh
