The Calcutta High Court recently directed the Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay a compensation of ₹3 lakh to a bank official with a disability of 70 percent. The court found the bank’s conduct towards the official to be “reprehensible”.
Background of the case
The bank official, Anirban Pal, had suffered a motor accident in 2015, resulting in a disability of 70 percent. In 2018, after seeing two of his colleagues with disabilities being promoted without transfer, Pal participated in the promotion process himself. Although he was successful in the promotion, he was issued transfer orders to Patna. Pal requested reconsideration, citing the lack of a caregiver in Patna, but the PNB declined his request and insisted that he leave for Patna.
Court’s observations and order
The Calcutta High Court took a serious view of the bank’s refusal to retain Pal in Calcutta upon promotion and its non-consideration of his repeated requests to be brought back from Patna. The court ordered the Chairman of PNB, Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, the Central government, and the Vigilance Commissioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against those responsible for the actions against Pal.
The court also directed that appropriate measures be taken to sensitize officials of all public sector banks regarding the “Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016” and the special rules of the bank in that regard.
Court’s criticism of the bank’s conduct
The court criticized the bank for its conduct in the case, noting that four officers in the Scale-IV category had been transferred to Calcutta upon promotion in 2018. The bank’s claim that there was no vacancy in Calcutta to accommodate Pal on promotion was deemed false and dishonest by the court. The court also stated that Pal could have been accommodated in Calcutta by invoking the bank’s transfer policy for physically disabled officers.
Court’s comments on the bank’s violation of its own policies
The court observed that the bank’s conduct was in violation of its own transfer policy and the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. It noted that the bank did not need an order from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities since it had its own guidelines against transferring persons with disabilities, even on promotion. The court expressed doubts about the bank’s bona fides and suggested that Pal’s continuous request for reposting in Calcutta may have ruffled the misplaced egoistic feathers of his superiors. It criticized this malaise in hierarchies of public sector banks and other organizations, which impacts the growth and well-being of the organization and its employees.
Court’s decision and costs imposed on the bank
Although the court refused to grant Pal’s prayer for restoration of promotion, it found the bank’s conduct against him to be reprehensible. As a result, the court imposed costs of ₹3 lakh on the bank, which it ordered to be paid to Pal within three weeks.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s recent decision directed the Punjab National Bank to pay compensation to a bank official with a disability for its reprehensible conduct. The court also criticized the bank for violating its own transfer policy and the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016. This case highlights the importance of sensitizing officials of public sector banks about the rights and needs of persons with disabilities.