Can Disabled Persons Claim Same-Place Posting Even After Promotion?

The rights of persons with disabilities in the workplace remain a crucial subject in India’s evolving jurisprudence. A recurring issue concerns the transfer and posting of disabled employees after their promotion. Can a disabled employee insist on remaining in the same location, or at least close to their original posting, even after being elevated to a higher rank? This question was squarely addressed in the recent Calcutta High Court judgment in Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (MAT 1380 & 1381 of 2024, decided on 14 August 2025).

The case presented a complex interplay between employment policies, constitutional rights, international conventions, and the lived realities of a severely disabled employee. The decision not only clarifies the legal position but also emphasises a humane and empathetic interpretation of disability rights.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Anirban Pal, joined the respondent bank in 2005 and was later working as a Scale-III officer in Kolkata. In 2015, he met with a serious motor accident that left him with 70% permanent disability, as certified by a competent authority.

When the bank announced promotions in 2018, Pal completed the process for promotion to Scale IV. However, instead of being retained in Kolkata, he was transferred to the Patna Zonal Office. This posed immense difficulties for him, as he lacked family support in Patna and required regular physiotherapy and assistance in daily activities. Despite making several representations requesting retention at Kolkata, his pleas were denied.

Out of desperation, he even requested reversion to Scale-III, stating that he would forgo his promotion if he could remain in Kolkata. His request was accepted by the bank in December 2018, with the condition that he would be debarred from further promotions for two years.

In 2020, when Pal sought restoration of his promotion, the bank rejected it. He challenged this rejection before the High Court in 2023, invoking the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the bank’s Transfer Policy (2015), which promised accommodations for physically handicapped employees.

Issues Before the Court

The case raised several key questions:

1. Delay and Limitation: Was the writ petition barred by delay, given that the reversion occurred in 2018 and the writ was filed in 2023?
2. Binding Nature of Policy: Is the bank’s policy accommodating disabled employees in transfers/postings enforceable in law?
3. Voluntariness of Reversion: Did Pal voluntarily seek reversion, or was it compelled by circumstances?
4. Right to Same-Place Posting: Can a disabled employee demand retention at the same place after promotion under the Disabilities Act?
5. Relief and Remedies: Should promotion be restored retrospectively and with consequential benefits?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Submissions

• Delay was excusable due to Covid-19 restrictions (2020–22) and personal bereavements. Moreover, the real cause of action arose in 2020 when restoration of promotion was refused, not in 2018.
• The bank’s transfer policy (Clauses 16 & 17), framed under the Disabilities Act, had statutory force and was binding.
• The Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities had issued directions in 2018 to accommodate him, which the bank ignored.
• His request for reversion was made under duress, not voluntarily.
• International obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) required purposive interpretation in favour of disabled persons.

Bank’s Submissions

• The writ was delayed by more than 3 years and should be dismissed.
• Reversion was voluntarily sought, with no evidence of coercion.
• Transfer and posting are administrative matters, and breach of guidelines does not confer a legal right.
• The Disabilities Act only requires non-discrimination; it does not mandate same-place posting.

Court’s Analysis

1. Delay in Filing

The Division Bench held that the delay was not fatal in this case. The cause of action arose in 2020 when restoration of promotion was denied, and the writ was filed within 3 years thereafter. The Covid period was excluded by the Supreme Court orders, and personal hardships explained further delay. Moreover, the bank had not raised a delay objection before the Single Judge or in appeal

2. Binding Effect of Policy

The Court emphasised that since 2012, the bank had a policy exempting physically handicapped officers from routine outstation transfers, even on promotion, subject to the availability of posts at the same location. This policy, made under Section 20(5) of the Disabilities Act, 2016, had a statutory flavour and was not a mere guideline. Thus, it was enforceable

3. International Commitments

Citing Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan (2022) 15 SCC 81, the Court reiterated that statutes and policies for disabled persons must be interpreted harmoniously with the UNCRPD, to which India is a signatory. Courts must adopt a sensitive and empathetic approach, recognising the special needs of disabled employees

4. Voluntariness of Reversion

The Court examined Pal’s representations and noted that he repeatedly pleaded inability to live and work in Patna without family support, given his 70% disability. Specific pleadings of pressure and coercion by bank officials were not denied in the bank’s affidavit. Applying the principle in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University (1976) 1 SCC 311, the Court held that admissions made under duress cannot bind an employee. His reversion was not voluntary but compelled by circumstances

5. Legitimate Expectation and Non-Arbitrariness

The petitioner had a legitimate expectation, based on the policy, that he would be accommodated in Kolkata. Failure to honour this expectation was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Judgment

The Calcutta High Court allowed Pal’s appeal and directed:

• Restoration of his promotion to Scale-IV, posting him at Kolkata.
• Promotion to be restored notionally from the date of reversion, with consequential seniority and pay fixation.
• Actual salary benefits to accrue from the date he assumes charge as Scale-IV in Kolkata.
• The Court upheld the Single Judge’s directions regarding disciplinary proceedings and costs against the bank for suppressing material facts.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De stated:

“India being signatory to UNCRPD is obliged to make its statutes, rules, guidelines, circulars etc. for the advantage of physically disabled persons. The disabled are entitled to the fundamental right of equality flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In Net Ram Yadav (supra) the State issued a notification/circular dated 20.07.2000 which was an executive instruction/guideline. While considering the said circular, the Apex Court opined that object is to enable physically disabled to be posted at a place where assistance is readily available.

The judgment of High Court was overturned by Supreme Court with observation that the High Court should have been more sensitive and empathetic to the plight of a physically disabled. It was further observed that the High Court erred-in law in overlooking the difference between physically disabled persons impaired in their movement and normal able bodied person. The special need of such persons could not be noticed by the High Court.

The matter may be viewed from another angle. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation based on the promotion/transfer policy to remain posted on promotion at Kolkata. Failure to consider and give due weight to such a policy makes the decision arbitrary. It is settled law that the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of principle of non-arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of the rule of law.”

Legal Principles Emerging from the Case

1. Same-Place Posting for Disabled Employees: Disabled employees have a preferential right to be retained at the same station, even on promotion, subject to the availability of posts. This flows from statutory policy under the Disabilities Act.
2. Policies Have Statutory Force: When framed under an enabling statute like the Disabilities Act, transfer/posting policies for disabled employees are binding, unlike ordinary administrative circulars.
3. Reversion Under Duress: A request for reversion by a disabled employee, made under compelling circumstances, cannot be treated as voluntary. Courts must look at the substance, not just the form.
4. Legitimate Expectation Doctrine: Failure to honour legitimate expectations arising from a statutory policy amounts to an arbitrary action, violating Article 14.
5. International Law as Interpretive Guide: The UNCRPD influences the interpretation of Indian disability rights law, requiring a purposive and empathetic approach.

Broader Implications

This judgment is a milestone in strengthening the workplace rights of disabled employees. Its implications extend beyond banks to all government and public sector employers:

• Administrative Exigency v. Human Rights: While employers often cite “administrative exigencies,” courts are now inclined to prioritise human dignity and practical feasibility for disabled employees.
• Judicial Sensitivity: The judgment stresses the need for empathy and sensitivity, rejecting a rigid, technical approach.
• Equality Beyond Formalism: Treating disabled employees as identical to others, without considering their special needs, is not equality but discrimination.
• Encouragement of Inclusion: By enforcing same-place postings, the Court promotes greater inclusivity in workplaces, enabling disabled employees to thrive.

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Anirban Pal v. Punjab National Bank affirms that disabled employees can claim a same-place posting even after promotion, provided vacancies exist. The Court recognised that denying such accommodation effectively forces disabled persons into untenable situations, undermining their rights under domestic and international law.

This judgment thus balances administrative concerns with the constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusion. It stands as a precedent ensuring that promotion does not become a penalty for disabled employees but a reward that respects their rights and realities.