JUDGMENT : 1. August 12, 1997 Heard in Part. Call this matter on August 19, 1997. Learned counsel for the opposite parties shall obtain instruction as to whether the opposite party No. 1 is willing to get the petitioner examined at the NIRTAR, Olatpur. Heard learned counsel for parties. There is dispute about percentage of physical handicap of the petitioner. Certain documents have been filed by the petitioner to claim that he is physically handicapped, and the percentage of handicap is 40%. 2. According to learned counsel for opposite party No, 1 in the accident which took place in the year 1991 the injury sustained was a simple fracture of the ankle which cannot result in any disability. Petitioner has referred to certain documents to show that the persons who are almost similarly situated have been treated to be physically handicapped and have been retained at the places of their choice, and a departure is being made in the case of petitioner. On the last occasion by order dated August 12, 1997 we had directed the learned counsel for o. p. No. 1 to indicate as to whether opp. party No. 1 is willing to get the petitioner examined at NIRTAR, Olatpur. 3. Learned counsel for o. p. No. 1 has referred to certain documents to show that there is no disability. In case of such disputes, it is appropriate that an authoritative body may decide the question of physical handicap prima facie fracture of an ankle would not cause physical disability to the extent of 40% But it would all depend upon nature of the fracture. 4. In the circumstances, we direct that the petitioner shall appear before the NIRTAR, Olatpur with a copy of our order on September 9, 1997 without any further notice so that the concerned authority can assess the percentage of disability, if any. The examination shall be done by a Specialist, who would preferably be Head of the Department of the concerned wing. A representative of the Bank (o. p. No. 1) shall also remain present. The time of appearance is fixed at 11 a.m. The cost of examination, if any, shall be borne by o.p. No. 1 Bank. A report shall be submitted by NIRTAR to this Court by September, 15,1997. Call this matter on September 16,1997. A copy of the order be handed over to learned counsel for petitioner. The time of appearance is fixed at 11 a.m. The cost of examination, if any, shall be borne by o.p. No. 1 Bank. A report shall be submitted by NIRTAR to this Court by September, 15,1997. Call this matter on September 16,1997. A copy of the order be handed over to learned counsel for petitioner. Sd/-A. pASAYAT, J. Sd/-S.C.DATTA,J. XX XX XX September 23, 1997. Heard learned counsel for parties. Order of transfer passed by opposite party No. 2 is under challenge. Main ground is that the petitioner is physically handicapped, and therefore, should not ordinarily be transferred as it would cause inconvenience to him. The petitioner has prayed for preferential posting at Bhubaneswar. Certain documents have been filed to show that he suffers from physical disability, and the percentage of disability has been assessed at 55%, and petitioner has been transferred to Sambalpur. We find from the records that the petitioner had suffered a fracture injury in the year 1991. In order to find out whether the claim of percentage of physical disability as made by the petitioner is acceptable, with the consent of parties, we directed his examination by a Medical Board of National Institute of Rehabilitation, Training and Research (in short, 'NIRTAR'). The conclusion made by the said Board is as follows: "This is a case of old lateral Malleous (Rt) treated by plaster in 1991". The extent of disability (Estimate in percentage Mc. Birde Scale) is stated to be 25% only. It is found out that no appliances have been used. The nature of disability was indicated to be 'An old treated case of crack Lateral Malleous (Rt) side 1991 with Low backache". The opposite parties have indicated that the petitioner has undertaken strenuous journeys ranging from 70 kilometres to 300 kilometres both inside Orissa and in West Bengal. This according to opposite-party-Bank shows his nature of disability, and there would be no prejudice being caused to him. In view of the report submitted by the NIRTAR, we are of the view that the order of transfer does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed