WRIA/15090/2020 of SMT. RANJANA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND 6 OTHERS on 23 December 2020

Chief Justice's CourtCase :- WRIT - A No. - 15090 of 2020Petitioner :- Smt. Ranjana Singh And AnotherRespondent :- Union Of India And 6 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Niraj TiwariCounsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief JusticeHon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf ofUnion of India.

This petition for writ is before us to examine correctness of thejudgment dated 14th December, 2020 passed by learned CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad inOriginal Application No. 330/00722/2020 along with OriginalApplication No. 330/00724/2020.

Learned Tribunal while dismissing the Original Applicationrefuse to interfere with an order of transfer by arriving at aconclusion that there is no violation of any statute. The order oftransfer is also not outcome of mala fides and that is also notshockingly arbitrary. Learned Tribunal also held that thetransfer policy on which a reliance is placed by the applicant,writ petitioner herein, is nothing but administrative instructionand, therefore, the same is not justifiable.

Before us it is urged that learned Tribunal failed to appreciatethat though the policy of transfer is not statutory but that hasbeen uniformly applied and its condition (xiii) prescribing that"when both the husband and wife are working in MES and fallwithin this posting policy, they may mandatorily be posted atthe same station if posts are available". According to learnedcounsel, the mandatory policy is required to be adhered and thatcannot be ignored if any post is available with the respondents.

While opposing the petition, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that a representationsubmitted by the petitioner no. 2 is pending consideration but inview of the fact that both the petitioners are working in differentcommands, they cannot be posted at same station, in samecommand, till getting transfer of one among them to acommand where other petitioner is already working. It is alsobrought to our notice that no application is yet been moved byany of the petitioner for change of their command. Learnedcounsel has also submitted that in fact the petitioner no. 2 wastransferred to Gorakhpur at his own request to serve his ailingparents. He has already completed his term at Gorakhpur and,as such, he has been transferred to another place. At the time oftransfer to Gorakhpur, the petitioner no. 2 was unmarried andwhile remaining at Gorakhpur, he entered into wedlock withpetitioner no. 1 who is working at different command.

Having considered the facts stated by learned counsel appearingon behalf of the respondents, we deem it appropriate to disposeof this petition for writ by keeping it open for the petitioners tosubmit appropriate application for change of their commandand to remain at one station in accordance with the postingpolicy. If the petitioners submits any such application within aperiod of fifteen days from today, the same shall be consideredby the competent authority in accordance with lawexpeditiously, as far as possible within a period of one monthfrom the date of submission of such application.

Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.12.2020VMA