Meena Kumarin vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Bipin Chander Negi, J

A Trained Graduate Teacher (Non Medical), has come up before this Court against her transfer from Government Senior Secondary School, Ghandir District Bilaspur to Government High School, Sarma u/C Government Senior Secondary School, Bani Materni, District Solan vide impugned transfer order dated 30.09.2023.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that prior to the present transfer, petitioner had served in the previous station for more than three years, i.e., w.e.f. 09.07.2020. The Transfer Policy also provides that a normal tenure at a station would be three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the fourth respondent, who is a Political Functionary. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.

In this regard, attention of this Court is drawn to a judgment passed in CWP No.2624 of 2022 , titled Shabnam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 18.09.2020 wherein, it has been held that once an employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern as to what is the basis of the transfer order.

The other grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred without joining time and TTA. This grievance is genuine, therefore, liberty is accorded to the petitioner to make representation to the competent authority for release of TTA and consequential benefits of joining time.

Yet, another plea sought to be raised by the present petitioner is that her spouse is also working and as per Transfer Policy, the petitioner alongwith her spouse is required to be posted at one place as far as possible.

In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in Bank of India vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision is reproduced herein below for a ready reference:-

“5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the deci- sion in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All-India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the adminis- tration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an All-India Service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of All-India Service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was. prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the Officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of All-India Service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.

From perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is evident that Transfer Guidelines so issued do not enable any spouse to claim postings as a matter of right if the Department-authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigency of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.

The petitioner is free to make a representation before the concerned respondent authority in this respect also.

Given above, the petition is closed with the aforesaid observation. Order of interim stay dated 11.10.2023 stands vacated.