Calcutta High Court Demands Humanity in Employee Transfer Case
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration, emphasizing the need for humanity and compassion in administrative decisions, particularly when dealing with employees facing serious health challenges. The court dismissed the administration's plea that sought to prevent a laboratory assistant, who has only one kidney, from submitting a fresh representation against his transfer order.
Extraordinary Medical Circumstances Require Exceptional Consideration
A division bench comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray highlighted that they were dealing with an extraordinary circumstance where the respondent employee had undergone a nephrectomy, resulting in the removal of one kidney due to carcinoma. The bench firmly stated that the administration, as a model employer, must act reasonably and sympathetically when an employee suffers from a severe ailment.
The court's order poignantly noted that the administration should treat the employee's next representation with a cup of kindness, underscoring the importance of humane treatment in bureaucratic processes. This directive came during the hearing of the administration's appeal against a tribunal order that had granted the employee a final opportunity to challenge his relocation on medical grounds.
Background of the Transfer Dispute
The laboratory assistant, employed at a senior secondary school, was initially ordered to be transferred to Long Island in August 2025. He challenged this transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Kolkata, which directed the administration to consider his representation. Following a medical board examination, the administration modified the transfer order in November 2025, relocating him to Mayabunder instead of Long Island.
However, the employee contested this modification, arguing that adequate medical facilities were only available at G.B. Pant Hospital in Port Blair. He emphasized that the six-hour ferry journey from Mayabunder would impose undue hardship given his medical condition, which requires follow-up by a specialist every three months due to his single kidney and comorbidities.
Key Findings and Judicial Observations
The Calcutta High Court made several critical observations in its ruling:
- The tribunal did not issue any mandamus to post the employee at a specific location, thus not overstepping its authority.
- There was no legitimate reason for the petitioner-authorities to be aggrieved by the tribunal's order.
- It was reasonable for the tribunal to direct that the transfer order be kept in abeyance pending a decision on the employee's fresh representation.
- While transfer is an incident of service, the employer must consider extraordinary medical circumstances with empathy.
The court acknowledged that in ordinary circumstances, the administration's grievance about allowing a second representation might have merit. However, given the employee's extraordinary medical situation—including kidney removal due to carcinoma and renal malfunction with comorbidities—the administration should consider a fresh representation sympathetically and make a reasoned decision.
Implications for Administrative Practices
This ruling sets a significant precedent for how government administrations should handle transfer cases involving employees with serious health conditions. The Calcutta High Court's emphasis on humanity and kindness in bureaucratic processes serves as a reminder that administrative efficiency must not come at the cost of compassion, especially in life-altering medical scenarios.
The decision reinforces the principle that public employers have a duty to act as model employers, balancing operational needs with empathetic consideration for employees' well-being. This case highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative actions are tempered with humanity, particularly when individuals face extraordinary health challenges.
