S/L 60 24.07.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N M.A.T. 1087 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Amarendra Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Achin Kr. Majumdar, Ms. Ananya Adhikary … for the Appellant. Mr. Udayan Chakraborty, Sr. Adv., Mr. Victor Bansal Agarwal … for the Respondents. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The respondents are also represented. 3. It is the appellant’s case that he was declared unfit on account of some neurological condition and, therefore, there was a recommendation that he should not be employed on running lines, near moving machinery; and should avoid fire arms. Such recommendation was made in respect of the petitioner, an enrolled member of the Railway Protection Force. Having regard to such recommendation the petitioner was accommodated in duties at the loco works where there was no involvement of fire arms, moving machinery or running or passing of trains. 4. The petitioner, however, does not agree to such a posting which is the matter pending consideration before the Hon’ble Single Judge in the pending writ proceedings. The petitioner was not allowed a stay of the posting order 2 of the petitioner as above. The Hon’ble Single Judge, however, invited an affidavit-in-opposition and allowed the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply by the order dated 23.06.2026, impugned in the present Intra Court Appeal. 5. It is vehemently submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant that the relevant rules requires posting on an alternative suitable post in case of a declaration of physical incapacity on any grounds. He, therefore, submits that the posting which has been given to him was not in accordance with the rules. He has also relied upon decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Tejan Mitra & Ors. –Vs.- Union of India & Ors. in F.M.A. No. 338 of 2005. 6. We have considered the submissions and the judgment relied upon. 7. We find that in the said judgment despite a declaration of incapacity there was a direction for reassessment by a medical board and that also was directed to be done at a far away place. It is under such circumstance that the Division Bench held: “20. We do appreciate the stand taken by Mr. Chittaranjan Bag but in the instant case, we are inclined to take the view in line with paragraph 1303 to the effect that once a Member of a force under a para-military service has been declared medically unfit and if he cannot immediately be adjusted or absorbed on any suitable alternative post, then he has to be kept on a supernumerary post in the grade in which he was working before being declared medically unfit. The rule does not provide that once declared medically unfit, the instructions as contained in paragraph 1303 can be bypassed and instead, the concerned decategorised/already declared medically unfit staff can be once again sent for “re-medical 3 examination” and that too, to such a far-away place under the Northern Railways.” 8. Such an issue does not arise for consideration in the present proceeding. 9. We, however, refrain from making any comment on merits of issue at the moment since the writ proceeding is still pending before the Hon’ble Single Judge. We find no reason at this stage to interfere as the interim order has prima facie taken note of a fact that the petitioner has been accommodated on an alternative post as per the recommendation of the medical board. 10. The appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending application is also dismissed. 12. Lastly it is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant that we should direct the Writ Court to expedite the matter. We find that a liberty to mention the matter is granted by the order impugned, thus, there is no occasion for this Court to make any comment in this regard. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)