IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL &

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE MAT 1380 OF 2024 ANIRBAN PAL VS.

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

WITH MAT 1381 OF 2024 IA NO. CAN 2 OF 2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.

VS.

ANIRBAN PAL Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Adv.

In MAT 1380/2024 & Ms. Rupsa Sreemani, Adv.

For the Respondent in MAT 1381 of 2024 For the PNB : Mr. Saptansu Basu, Adv.

Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv.

Heard On : 11.08.2025 Judgment On : 14.08.2025 Sujoy Paul, J.: The Challenge:

1. In these intra Court appeals, the petitioner and the Bank are at logger heads on the legality, validity and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 10195 of 2023 dated 20.06.2024 whereby learned Single Judge held that the petition is filed with a delay of 3 years which extinguished petitioner’s challenge to the refusal of the Bank to restore his promotion to Scale-IV. The relief is declined to the petitioner on yet another ground that after his reversion, he did not avail at least two promotional chances from 2020 till the date of filing of writ petition. The Bank is aggrieved by the portion of the order wherein certain findings are given against the Bank and also because of imposition of cost of Rs. 3 lakhs and further direction to grant increment to the petitioner and hold disciplinary proceedings against the officers of the Bank.

Brief facts:

2. To start the thread, the petitioner initially joined the respondent Bank in October, 2005. The petitioner remained posted in Head Office, Delhi between November, 2005 to January, 2008. The petitioner suffered a motor accident sometime in the year 2015 and sustained serious injuries. This resulted into disability of 70 per cent as per certificate issued by appropriate authority. When petitioner met with the accident, he was working as Scale-III officer and was posted in the United Bank of India, Kolkata which is now known as Punjab National Bank.

3. In the year 2016, in the promotion process, the petitioner did not participate with the fear of his transfer. However he noticed that his two colleagues Anubhav Verma and Ajit Shribastava who were also suffering from physical disabilities were promoted to Scale-IV post within Kolkata.

4. Accordingly, petitioner participated in promotion process of Scale-IV Grade and cleared it with flying colours. The result was declared in October, 2018.

5. Upon promotion as Scale-IV officer, the petitioner was transferred to Zonal office at Patna from Kolkata. The petitioner preferred representation on 8th October, 2018 pointing out his difficulty at Patna and highlighted his personal and family problems. He laid emphasis that in absence of family support, it is difficult for him with 70 per cent disability to perform his duties and take care of himself at Patna.

6. The Bank by communication dated 15th October, 2018 declined the request of the petitioner for retaining him in Kolkata. Then only petitioner joined at Patna on 12th November, 2018.

7. The petitioner preferred another representation dated 24th November, 2018 for his reposting at Kolkata because of difficulty being faced by him while staying alone in Patna. The disgruntled petitioner also stated that he may be reverted back to Scale-III and is ready to forgo his promotion.

8. Before preferring this representation dated 24th November, 2018, the petitioner preferred a complaint before Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter called ‘Disabilities Act’) against the action of the Bank in not accommodating him in Kolkata after his promotion.

9. At the material time, the Bank had a policy/circular for accommodating the persons with disabilities at the same place subject to the administrative exigencies. The petitioner’s case is based on Clause 16 and

17 of the said Transfer Policy dated 15.03.2015 (Annexure “P-2”).

10. By communication dated 6