Dr. Sonali Gopalrao Badhe v. Union Of India

December 3, 2021 Item No. 14 Court No.1 SG/s.biswas MAT 683 of 2020 With CAN 1 of 2020 Dr. Sonali Gopalrao Badhe vs.

Union of India and others (Through Video Conference) Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi, Mr. S. N. Chattopadhyay, Advocates ... for the appellant Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Amal Kr. Datta, Advocates ... for the Enforcement Directorate This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30.09.2020 whereby the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by observing that the appellant has been given the option to work from home as also for coming to the office for specific assignment and further observing that the allegations made by the appellant can be dealt with in proper and authorized manner by the respondent authorities.

Having perused the writ petition, we have noticed that the appellant is an employee of the respondent Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India and is presently posted in the regional office of Calcutta.

The main grievance raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not being provided with the safety equipment such as mask, gloves, hand sanitizers, etc. and her cubicle was not properly disinfected and during the COVID period the vehicle was also withdrawn. Therefore, she was discriminated.

Learned single Judge has duly considered all these relevant aspects of the matter and has come to the conclusion

MAT 683 of 2020 that the petitioner has option to work from home and the grievance so raised by the petitioner can be duly looked into by the authorities.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant wants to go to office and work from there. Leaned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the appellant is in fact coming to the office and doing work in the office. He has also stated that the common facilities such as sanitizers, mask, etc. are available to all the employees and the appellant is not discriminated in this regard and for such a small issue, the appellant ought not to have approached this Court as the respondent authorities are ready to consider the grievance of the appellant in this regard.

In view of the above observations, we find no error in the order of the learned single Judge.

Hence, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.] [Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]