Facts
Anup Mitra, an Assistant Registrar at DRT-3, Kolkata, challenged his transfer to DRT Cuttack and the accompanying release order, both dated 14 February 2025.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–9He relied on a medical certificate recording 40% permanent disability due to paraplegia and stated that he had earlier been transferred to Kolkata on disability grounds.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–9He also submitted that he was nearing superannuation and that the transfer followed an interim order in his earlier application challenging an appointment at DRT-3.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–9The respondents denied that the transfer was punitive or intended to victimise him.
Source reference: pp. 2–3, paras. 4–9Issues
1. Whether the transfer and release orders dated 14 February 2025 warranted interference because they allegedly victimised the applicant during the pendency of his earlier service-related application.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 102. Whether the transfer orders reflected disregard of applicable considerations concerning employees with disabilities and employees nearing retirement.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Law Applied
The Tribunal referred to established guidelines concerning employees with physical disabilities and employees nearing retirement, but did not identify a particular statute, provision, precedent, or specific guideline in its reasoning.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10The applicant’s counsel had relied on the disability legislation, but the order does not specify or analyse any particular provision of that legislation.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4Reasoning
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s disability certificate, his earlier transfer order on disability grounds, the interim order in his earlier application, and the impugned transfer and release orders.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10It concluded that the timing of the transfer—during the pendency of the earlier service dispute—gave credence to the applicant’s allegation of victimisation.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10It further found that the orders reflected disregard of guidelines concerning employees with disabilities and those nearing retirement.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10The Tribunal did not provide further analysis of the applicable guidelines or the respondents’ reasons for the transfer.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 10Holding
The Tribunal allowed the application without costs, thereby granting relief against the impugned transfer and release orders.
It also disposed of both miscellaneous applications.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 11Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851
Original Court PDF
ANUP MITRAvsFINANCIAL SERVICES
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Transfer of a disabled employee nearing retirement during pending litigation was found to be victimization.. ANUP MITRA vs FINANCIAL SERVICES. CAT - ['Kolkata']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/transfer-of-a-disabled-employee-nearing-retirement-during-pending-litigation-was-found-to-4eda2f532b4048c4ba0190e0024d825c.webp)