O R D E R (ORAL)
This is the second round of litigation.
2. In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Quash the impugned transfer order dated 08.03.2022; and
(b) Set-aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the respondent; and (c) Quash the reviling order no. DGV /4/ (i) /270 dated 17.01.2024 and movement order no. CPT (PP/2894/93 dated 17.01.2024 issued by the respondents; and
(d) Direct the respondents to transfer the applicant at any place within Delhi/NCR which has been requested by the applicant in his request.
(e) Pass any other order or further order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondents as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. The applicant made a representation which was duly disposed of by the respondents by giving the status and circumstances under which she has been transferred out of Delhi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues and seeks the relief that the applicant may be retained at Delhi as her husband is working in the Department of Revenue and has recently been transferred to Delhi from Chandigarh due to his spouse posting in Delhi, while on 08.03.2022, the applicant was transferred from New Delhi to
3
Visakhapatnam. By letter dated 22.03.2022, the applicant submitted her request regarding her retention at New Delhi and cancellation of her transfer. Further on 27.05.2022, applicant wrote a letter for deferment of transfer on medical ground f0r six months and subsequently applied for child care leave for 365 days which was duly sanctioned by the respondents.
5. In the earlier round of litigation, the applicant filed OA No. 4162/2023 and MA No. 4691/2023 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the said OA with direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 22.03.2022 made by the applicant within a limited period. The respondents disposed of the said representation on 12.01.2024 and turned down the request of the applicant vide order dated 17.01.2024, the respondents relieved her and directed the applicant to report to her new unit.
6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant states that even the letter dated 12.01.2024 and her relieving order was served upon the applicant on 17.01.2024.
7. This position is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the DoPT OM dated 30.09.2009 on the subject of posting of husband and wife at the same station. Para 4. (iv) of the OM reads thus:
4
"Where the spouse belongs to one Central Service and the other spouse belongs to another Central Service:-
The spouse with the longer service at a station may apply to his/her appropriate cadre controlling authority and the said authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists. In case that authority, after consideration of the request, is not in a position to accede to the request, on the basis of non- availability of vacant post, the spouse with lesser service may apply to the appropriate cadre authority accordingly, and that authority will consider such requests for posting the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the nearest station where the post exists."
9. Learned c0unsel for the applicant further draws my attention to the document which is policy guidelines for transfer of civilian personnel issued by the Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy), Directorate of Civilian Personnel, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi on 11.08.2015 highlighting para 17, which reads thus:
" 17. Transfer to facilitate husband and wife to serve in the same station is to be ensured to the extent possible, subject to service exigency. On first appointment, married ladies may be transferred to posting at a place where their husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place, and unmarried ladies may be posted at a place whese her parents are stationed or as near as possible to that place."
5
10. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents, when a pointed query was made to the officers available from the concerned Naval Unit, the officer answered that due to limited vacancies at the Delhi Office, they are not in a position to consider permanent posting of the applicant as there are many similarly placed employees facing the same difficulties as the applicant.
11. While this Tribunal does not indulge in the matters of transfer policy in general other than where policy violation or non-implementation of statutes is involved, under the circumstances, wherein the applicant has a small child to take care of and her husband has been recently transferred to Delhi from Chandigarh, indefinite placement of the applicant is neither a possibility nor can be invoked by directing the respondents. However, by invoking para 17 of the policy guidelines for transfer of civilian personnel and DoPT's OM dated 30.09.2009, the respondents are directed to consider afresh her representation for interim relief, wherein she can be accommodated for some more time at New Delhi so that the applicant is prepared for future posting and can make alternate arrangements. Counsel for the applicant is apprehensive that the respondents will not consider applicant's representation empathetically but the officers who have attended the court today from Naval Units assured that they will make sure that a reasonable relief is provided to the applicant.
6
12. With these directions, OA stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati)
Member (A)
/abhay/