21.07.2026 Sl. No. 26 Ct No. 18 SG WPA 15740 of 2026 Santanu Mukherjee Vs. The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Dhilan Sengupta, Ms. Suva Gayen, Ms. Susmita Das, Ms. Madhurima Dutta. ……for the Petitioner Mr. Siddharthaya Bhattacharyya, Ms. Debjani Ghosal. ……for UOI 1. Affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court today, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that being a person with Ankylosing Spondylitis having fifty percent of permanent disability, the petitioner ought not to be transferred to Jalpaiguri. The petitioner has been transferred by an order of January 26, 2026 issued by the respondent no. 3. 3. The ground taken by the respondent is that the grievance of the petitioner ought to be placed before the Chief Commissioner under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, in terms of the Act it is the Chief Commissioner alone who has been empowered to identify and dispose of disputes between the employer and the employee, if the employee is a 2 person covered under the said Act of 2016. Therefore, this writ petition ought not be entertained. 4. Mr. Sengupta addressing this issue has drawn attention of this Court to Sections 75 and 76 of the Act to establish that the powers of the Chief Commissioner are set in motion only if there is a situation emanating from a discriminatory act of commission and/or omission by the employer. He has specifically submitted that there is no such act of commission and/or omission by the authorities as against him, which can be termed as discriminatory. The transfer order of the petitioner has been challenged, merely on logistical issues. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and considered the materials available on record. The Act is clear and unequivocal. In fact, the Act of the earlier regime has now been far more stabilized and the functions of the Chief Commissioner enlarged by virtue of Sections 76 and 77 of the said Act which give powers to the Chief Commissioner almost akin to a civil court. The Chief Commissioner has been given the powers to summon witnesses and enforcing their attendance, requiring discovery and production of documents and issuing commissions for examination of witnesses. The powers are, however, subject to the functions of the Chief Commissioner which have been entailed in great details in Section 75 of the Act. The 3 functions of the Chief Commissioner cannot arise in the event there is no discrimination complained of by the employee. The petitioner has in no uncertain terms admitted that he has not been subjected to any discrimination. In fact, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2056 (Mukesh Kumar vs. National Power Training Institute and Ors.), relied upon by Mr. Sengupta appearing for the petitioner is clear and unequivocal that powers of the Chief Commissioner and the recommendations made by him though not binding on the employer, have to be treated with far greater respect than before. In fact, the employer will have to disclose valid reasons for not accepting the order or recommendation made by the Chief Commissioner. At the same time, it is also a matter of autonomy which has to be taken into account. 6. In a matter of the present nature, concerning transfer or like nature, that of promotion, grant of pay scale, etc., are the exclusive domain of the employer and any interference on any of the aforestated limbs would mean a direct interference into the autonomy of the employer. The only ground on which such autonomy can be interfered with is when an employee complains that such an action is discriminatory. Such an action which is discriminatory, even if, it is within the autonomous domain of an employer, can be 4 interfered with. This interference can be, in the case of an employee with disabilities, covered under the Act of 2016 be brought to the notice of the Chief Commissioner under the said Act. However, when such act of commission and/or omission does not entail or bear the consequences of infringement of the right of an employee with disability, like the petitioner, the 2016 Act is not attracted. 7. Since the provisions of the 2016 Act are not attracted in this case as the petitioner has reiterated that he is not being subjected to any discrimination or any infringement as specified in the Act of 2016, the petitioner may not be required to go before the Chief Commissioner. 8. Since an application has already been made by the petitioner, which is pending consideration, I direct the respondent no. 4 to dispose of the representations of the petitioner dated January 27, 2026 and June 18, 2026 by July 31, 2026. 9. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and the respondent no. 4 will give a hearing to the petitioner with adequate prior notice and pass a reasoned order taking into account the applicable rules and regulations including the transfer policy for the employees of Tea Board and the office memo issued by the Government of India dated May 5 10, 1990. The transfer order will not be given effect till disposal of the representations. 10. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Parties to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)