‘A cup of kindness’: Why Calcutta High Court slammed Andaman administration for transferring employee with one kidney

“The administration, being a model employer, should act reasonably and sympathetically, where the employee concerned is suffering from a serious ailment,” the court observed.

The order added that the administration must also act with humanity and treat the next representation of employees with a cup of kindness.

Findings

• The tribunal has not issued any mandamus to the competent authority to post the respondent at any particular place.
• No real or legitimate reason for the petitioner-authorities to be aggrieved.
• It was also reasonable for the tribunal to direct that the transfer order be kept in abeyance pending the decision of the competent authority on the fresh representation of the respondent.
• 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 utilised.
• The advocate for the authorities 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.
• In ordinary circumstances, we may have found merit in such a 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 administration should consider a fresh representation of the respondent sympathetically and take a reasoned decision thereon.

Background

• The man, the laboratory assistant at a senior secondary school, was initially ordered to be transferred to Long Island in August 2025.
• He challenged this order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, 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.
• In this 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 documents or testimony about 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 authority submitted 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.
• However, the man again approached the tribunal, arguing that adequate medical facilities were only available at G.B. Pant Hospital in Port Blair and that the six-hour ferry journey from Mayabunder would cause undue hardship.
• The administration has challenged the tribunal’s order to liberty to submit a fresh, comprehensive representation regarding his transfer within 15 days.