What will be impact of the order and who won the case

ORDER SHEET WP 491 OF 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE SANTANU MUKHERJEE Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 20th November, 2018. Appearance: Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anindya Sundar, Adv. ….for the petitioner Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra, Adv. Mr. Subrata Dasgupta, Adv. …for the state Mr. Alok Kumar Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arunabha Sarkar, Adv. …for the respondent No. 3 to 5. The Court : Affidavit of service be filed in Court today be kept with the record. The petitioner contends that he joined Tea Board under Special Recruitment Drive for Persons with Disabilities in the year 2010. He has drawn my attention to a disability certificate dated 20th February, 2010, issued by the District Hospital, Howrah. By an office memorandum dated 4th May, 2018, he has been transferred to the Tea Board Quality Control Laboratary, Silliguri from the Head Office at Calcutta. He has joined Siliguri Office. However, he has made two representations dated 17th July, 2 2018 and 6th August, 2018 to the Deputy Chairman of the Tea Board requesting to transfer him back to the Calcutta Office for the reasons mentioned in the representations. The only prayer of the petitioner is that such representations should be considered and decision should be taken expeditiously. Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the Tea Board submits that the petitioner has already availed of the transfer allowance. Be that as it may, since it appears that the petitioner suffers from disability and he has made representations to the Deputy Chairman of the Tea Board, being the respondent no. 3, I direct the respondent no. 3 to take a reasoned decision on the representations of the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules / regulations / circulars / notifications within a period of five weeks from the date of communication of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week from the date of the decision. I have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case. However, the respondent No. 3 being a highly placed Officer of the Tea Board, it is expected that he shall consider the case of the petitioner sympathically. Since, I have not called for any affidavit, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted by the respondents. WP 491 of 2018 is , accordingly, disposed of. (ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)