Honble Lt.Governor And ORS v. Shri. Anil Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/2/2026 Hon'ble Lt. Governor and Others Vs.

Shri Anil Kumar Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. P.C.Das ... for the respondents [through virtual mode] January 28, 2026 [SR] Item No.02 This writ petition is directed against an order dated December 24, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Circuit at Port Blair in O.A/351/1728/2025, being an original application filed by the respondent herein.

Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts culminating in the present application are that the respondent herein is working as Laboratory Assistant under Director of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration and was posted at Senior Secondary School, Prothrapur, Port Blair. Vide order dated August 29, 2025, the respondent was transferred to Long Island. He challenged the said transfer order by filing OA/351/1435/2025. Vide order dated September 24, 2025, the Central Administrative Tribunal passed the following direction:- "6. We are of the considered opinion that the OA can be disposed of by issuing appropriate direction to the respondents. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the pending representation of the applicant dated 01.09.2025 and communicate their decision to the

applicant by a reasoned speaking order within a period of 04 weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon them.

Till such time as the representation is disposed of, the Transfer Order dated 12.09.2025 in respect of the applicant will not be given effect to. The respondents are further directed to permit the applicant to continue in his present place of posting at Prothrapur till disposal of the representation."

Pursuant to such direction, the concerned authority considered the representation of the present respondent. It appears that a Medical Board was constituted and the respondent appeared before the Medical Board for being examined. By an order dated November 26, 2025, the respondent's transfer order was modified and he was posted at Mayabunder.

It appears that in the said order, the concerned authority noted that the present respondent had appeared before the Medical Board on October 18, 2025 and October 25, 2025, but did not carry any document or testimonial pertaining to his ailments and treatment undergone by him. It was further noted that the Medical Board had examined the respondent on November 11, 2025, and had reported that the respondent had left renal cell carcinoma and had undergone Nephrectomy in 2022. The order further recorded the Medical Board's observation that as per records, the employee had hypertension and deranged renal function. Further he requires follow up by a medical specialist every three months as he has a single kidney with comorbidities.

The authority was of the view that Mayabunder has the necessary medical facility and the respondent would be able to receive due medical attention and undergo medical review as he was advised. Challenging the order dated November 26, 2025, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in the present round of litigation. By the order impugned in this writ petition, the Tribunal directed as follows:- "9. Applicant is given liberty to make a fresh comprehensive representation along with his medical records to the competent respondent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to present himself for medical examination by a competent medical board duly constituted for this purpose on the date fix by the medical board along with all medical testimonials and supporting documents. 10.

Respondents are directed to consider representation of the applicant, if received within the aforesaid period, after recommendation of the medical board within a further period of 15 days thereafter and communicate the same to the applicant forthwith. 11.

In the meantime, respondents are directed not to give effect to the transfer order dated 27.11.2025 and relieving order dated 28.11.2025 till the time his representation is decided and communication is made to the applicant."

Being aggrieved, the Administration has come up by way of this writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the Administration says that the competent authority duly considered the case of respondent and therefore modified the transfer order posting the respondent at Mayabunder instead of Long Island. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that going by the transfer policy of the Administration, the respondent is scheduled to be posted in

Zone III and was accordingly posted at Long Island and now in Mayabunder.

To our query as to how long it takes to travel from Mayabunder to Port Blair, we were apprised that it takes about six hours by ferry.

Learned counsel for the respondent says that only the G.B.Pant Hospital, Port Blair has the requisite medical facility which can be availed of by the respondent. If the respondent has to travel for six hours from Mayabunder to Port Blair, frequently for medical checkup, it will cause undue hardship to him. Hence, the case of the respondent should be sympathetically considered.

We see that by the order under challenge, the Tribunal has not issued any mandamus to the competent authority to post the respondent at any particular place. Therefore, we do not see any real or legitimate reason for the petitioners to be aggrieved. It was also reasonable for the Tribunal to direct that the transfer order be kept in abeyance pending the decision of competent authority on fresh representation of the respondent.

We are also of the view that the Administration being a model employer, should act reasonably and sympathetically, in cases like the present one, where the employee concerned is suffering from a serious ailment. We are conscious that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide where the service of an employee can be best utilized. However, the Administration must also act with humanity.

We expect the Administration to be humane in considering the fresh representation of the respondent and treat the respondent's case with a cup of kindness. Learned advocate for the petitioners made a grievance that since the earlier representation of the respondent was already considered and disposed of by modifying the transfer order, the Tribunal should not have granted the respondent the liberty to make a second representation. While in ordinary circumstances, we may have found merit in such submission, we are dealing with an extraordinary circumstance where one kidney of the respondent has been removed due to carcinoma and he is suffering from renal malfunction with comorbidities.

The second opportunity granted to the respondent by the Tribunal is also justified since in its earlier order dated November 26, 2025, the competent authority observed that the respondent herein, while appearing before the medical board did not produce the medical records pertaining to his ailments and treatment. Therefore, Tribunal while granting leave to respondent herein to make a fresh representation, specifically directed the respondent to produce all relevant medical documents along with the representation. We see no apparent reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We expect the Administration to consider fresh representation of the respondent sympathetically and take a reasoned decision thereon.

The decision shall be communicated to the respondent immediately.

The Administration shall not give effect to the transfer and relieving order till 15 days from the date of communication of the order to the respondent. We repeat that we do not bind the Administration to dispose of the fresh representation of the respondent in a particular manner.

However, we expect that Administration to act reasonably with compassion. Since we are not calling for any affidavits, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondent.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)