Dismissed

dr. sonali gopalrao badhe v. Union of India

Calcutta HC3 Dec 2021MAT/683/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition where an Enforcement Directorate employee alleged discrimination due to lack of safety gear and work-from-home options during COVID-19. The Court found no error in the lower order as authorities were directed to address the grievances.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and connected application were dismissed with no prayers granted.

dr. sonali gopalrao badhe Vs Union of India — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

December 3, 2021 Item No. 14 Court No.1 SG/s.biswas

¶2

MAT 683 of 2020 With CAN 1 of 2020

¶3

Dr. Sonali Gopalrao Badhe vs. Union of India and others (Through Video Conference)

¶4

Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi, Mr. S. N. Chattopadhyay, Advocates

¶5

… for the appellant

¶6

Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Amal Kr. Datta, Advocates

¶7

… for the Enforcement Directorate

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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 and her cubicle was not properly disinfected and during the COVID period the vehicle was also withdrawn.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.

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

MAT 683 of 2020

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Hence, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶18

[Prakash Shrivastava, C.J.]

¶19

[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]

dr. sonali gopalrao badhe v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

dr. sonali gopalrao badhe v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nuzhat Banu Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mriganka Mistry Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sk. Md. Rafikul Islam Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

M/S. Msc Agency (India) Private Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Abbas Banu Alias Banarasi Vs Cesc Limited and Others

Apne Aap Women World Wide India Trust and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.