The Calcutta High Court ordered Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay Rs. 3 lakh in compensation for its inhumane treatment of a bank official with a disability. Additionally, the court mandated the sensitization of officials in all Public Sector Banks to better address and accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities, highlighting the importance of humane and respectful treatment in the workplace.
Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court recently ordered the Punjab National Bank (PNB) to provide a compensation of Rs. 3 lakh to a bank official with a 70 percent disability, citing the bank’s “reprehensible” conduct towards the official.
Justice Rajashkar Mantha strongly criticized the bank’s decision to refuse retaining the official at the Calcutta branch upon his promotion in 2018, as well as the bank’s non-consideration of his repeated requests to be transferred back from Patna.
Read Also: RBI Governor: “Sufficient time given” | On Action Against Paytm Payments Bank
Consequently, the Court directed the Chairman of Punjab National Bank, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, the Central government, and the Vigilance Commissioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against the individuals responsible for the actions taken against the official.
The order stated,
“Appropriate measures should be taken to sensitize officials of all Public Sector Banks regarding the Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 and the specific bank rules pertaining to it,”
Anirban Pal, the petitioner, suffered a severe motor accident in 2015, resulting in a 70 percent disability. At that time, he was serving as a Scale-III officer.
Pal refrained from participating in the bank’s promotion process in 2016 due to the fear of being transferred. However, when he observed that two of his colleagues with physical disabilities promoted to Scale-IV without transfer, he decided to join the promotion process in 2018.
He successfully secured a promotion to Scale IV but subsequently issued transfer orders to Patna. Pal immediately requested reconsideration, citing that he would lack a caregiver in Patna. The PNB, however, declined his request and insisted he report to Patna.
Although Pal joined the Patna office, he soon went on leave due to extreme discomfort and pain. The PNB allegedly threatened him with coercive action if he did not return to work.
In response, Pal sought repatriation to Calcutta with his promoted post or, alternatively, a reversion to Scale-III with a transfer back to Calcutta.
After the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities directed the bank to exempt Pal from transfer, he was posted back to Calcutta in December 2018 but in the Scale-III position.
In 2020, Pal requested the bank to restore his promotion to Scale-IV, but the request denied. Consequently, he approached the High Court.
Taking issue with the PNB’s actions, the Court noted that four officers in the Scale-IV category had been transferred to Calcutta from various parts of the country in October 2018 upon promotion.
It remarked,
“The bank’s claim that there was no vacancy in Calcutta to accommodate the petitioner on promotion in Scale-IV is not only specious but also false and dishonest,”
The Court also pointed out that Pal could have been easily accommodated in Calcutta under the PNB’s transfer policy for physically disabled officers.
The Court further observed,
“It is quite possible that he suffered significant difficulties living alone even briefly in Patna,”
The Court stated,
“He must have felt compelled to seek reversion to return to Calcutta for better care and comfort. The bank has blatantly violated its own transfer policy and the provisions of the Act of 2016 as detailed by the Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities. The bank’s conduct was inhuman, violated its Transfer Policy, and undermined the purpose of the Act of 2016,”
The Court also noted that the PNB did not require any order from the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities as it had its own guidelines against transferring persons with disabilities, even on promotion.
The Court expressed significant doubts about the genuineness of the bank’s conduct in accepting and allowing the petitioner’s request for reversion.
It added,
“This Court also harbours doubts that the petitioner’s repeated requests for reposting in Calcutta may have offended the egos of his superiors. Such issues are a regrettable problem within the hierarchies of Public Sector Banks and similar institutions, which severely impact human resources and hinder the growth and wellbeing of the organization and its employees,”
Although the Court criticized the PNB, it declined to grant the petitioner’s request, noting that he only sought the restoration of his promotion in 2020.
Read Also: Court Weakens CBI Case Against Yes Bank’s Rana Kapoor
However, the Court found the bank’s conduct reprehensible and imposed a penalty of Rs.3 lakh on the bank to be paid to the petitioner.
The order stated,
“The Court is inclined to impose exemplary and penal costs on the Punjab National Bank, formerly known as United Bank of India, of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which shall be paid by the Bank to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date,”
Advocates Srijib Chakraborty and Rupsa Sreemani represented the petitioner.
Advocates Parna Roy Chowdhury and Payel Ghosh represented PNB.
Read Judgement: [Anirban Pal vs Punjab National Bank And Others].
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
