IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2346 of 2009 TAPANMOY BISWAS Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2 19/2/2009 Heard the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to an Office order dated 21.1.2009, whereby the competent authority of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs has directed for immediate relieving of the petitioner for his joining at Lucknow on his promoted post. As a matter of fact this order dated 21.1.2009 is only follow up action of the earlier decision taken by the Government of India on 16.6.2008, whereby and whereunder, for the first time the Government of India had notified not only for promotion but also transfer of the petitioner from Patna. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had remained posted at Patna from April 2004 and eventually he was sought to be transferred from Patna and after four years and that 2 too with a promotion on the higher post. The petitioner however has been successfully evading his order of transfer and promotion for a period of almost eight months and now he is before this writ Court when only consequential order dated 21.1.2009 has been issued asking him to join on the transferred post. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his mother is not well and therefore he is required to stay at Patna. Counsel for the petitioner has also stated that wife of the petitioner is also posted at Delhi and therefore he tried to high light his grievance that either the petitioner should be allowed to stay at Patna or be posted at Delhi but he should not be asked to report at Lucknow. The counsel, in fact, submits that for this very purpose the petitioner had already forgone his promotion. The counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, reported in 1992 (1) S.C.C. 306 to contend that there is a stipulation in law that husband and wife, if both are in job, 3 should be allowed to stay together in one place. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is either expecting too much from his employer or has some wrong notion about his own capacity. The petitioner is an employee of SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL. If the petitioner is so keen to stay together with his wife he can very well resign from service, but till he is in service of the Force he is duty bound to comply the order of transfer. The ratio of judgment in the case of Bank of India (Supra) in fact also runs contrary to the submission of counsel for the petitioner. The Apex Court, in fact, has laid down law in the following words:- “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 decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different 4 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 administration 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 5 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 deteriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” (underlining by me for emphasis) The aforementioned underlined words therefore would go to show that no right can be claimed by any Government servant, muchless by a member of Force who cannot claim his posting at a particular place where his wife is working or posted. Moreover, repeated representations to this effect have been examined by the authorities and the representations were rejected by them as would be evident from the different enclosures of this writ application. In such a situation it is for the petitioner to choose his option. Be that as it may, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, but at the same time it is made clear that as the petitioner has forgone his promotion on the post of Upper Division Clerk which would appear from his representation dated 22.1.2008 and as such 6 the authorities may consider that aspect and if necessary pass a fresh order of his transfer on the lower post, i.e, on the post of Lower Division Clerk. With the aforementioned observation and direction this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar