HC order paves way for disabled bank staffer’s promotion after 5 yrs
Times of India | 18 August 2025
Kolkata: Calcutta High Court has directed a public sector bank to give a physically disabled man working with the bank his promotion — which was held back for nearly five years — within 45 days. It also directed the bank to give him a posting in Kolkata where he can have a support system.
However, the division bench of justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De on Aug 14 directed that he would not get arrears of pay from the date of his restoration of promotion but his seniority and pay would be made on the basis of the post where he has been promoted.
Anirban Pal joined the bank in 2005. In 2015, he met with an accident, resulting in 70% disability. In 2016, Pal did not participate in the promotion process (from Scale-III officer to Scale-IV) fearing transfer from Kolkata, but when he saw his two other colleagues with physical disabilities getting promoted without transfer, he applied. In Oct 2018, he was promoted but transferred to Patna. He approached the bank stating that in the absence of family support, it would be difficult for him to perform his duties and take care of himself in Patna. His performance in Kolkata was good. The posts were lying vacant wherein he could have been accommodated.
In 2018, while the bank was asked to reconsider Pal's claim and file a report, he simultaneously preferred representations seeking reversion, which was accepted by the bank, "making it clear that it is irrevocable and entails the debar for promotion for a period of 2 years". In 2020, his request for restoration of the promotion was rejected.
His matter came up before a single judge who dismissed the case, considering Pal approached in 2023 with a delay of three years and imposed a cost of Rs 3 lakh on the bank for disclosing details. Pal's counsel, Srijib Chakraborty, argued that March 15, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022, was a Covid period, wherein the SC also said that the period in between would not be counted for the purpose of counting limitation in any proceeding. The division bench accepted the reason for delay given by Pal's advocate, setting aside the order of the single judge.
"The petitioner had a preferential right to be posted in Kolkata in view of the binding policy of the Department. A suitable and meritorious officer was not posted at Kolkata for reasons best known to the Department. No justifiable reason was spelt out in not posting the petitioner on promotion at Kolkata despite the mandate ingrained in the guidelines...