The main legal point established in the judgment is that no officer has an enforceable legal right for a posting at the place of posting of the spouse under the transfer policy, and the policy of accommodating husband and wife at the same station can be enforced or implemented only after taking into account the other relevant clauses in the transfer policy.

CYRIAC JOSEPH, C. J.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this Writ Petition is against Annexure 'a' order dated 4-5-2006 passed by the central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench, in O. A. No. 108/2006 and also Annexure 'b' order dated 1-2-2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O. A. No. 373/2005. Both The applications were filed by Sr. S. X. .. Vasan. respondent in this Writ Petition. The petitioners were the respondents in O. A. Nos. 373/ 2005 and 108/2006.

( 2 ) THE respondent is a Commissioner of central Excise. While he was working as additional Commissioner, he was transferred and posted as Additional Commissioner at bangalore, on 12-8-2002. Later he was promoted as Commissioner on 5-11 -2002 and was posted at Bangalore itself. Thus, from 12-8-2002. the respondent was working at Bangalore. On 27-4-2005, the respondent submitted an application for transfer to Chennai mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that his wife who is a Commissioner of Income Tax is working at Chennai and as per the transfer policy, husband and wife may be posted at the same station. The second ground was that the grand-daughter of the respondent had health problems due to the climate in bangalore and the Doctor had advised to shift her to Chenna. The request of the respondent for transfer to Chennai was not granted by the department while issuing Annexure 'a-7' order dated 12-9-2005. Thereupon the respondent filed O. A. No. 373/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench, questioning the decision of the Department to reject his request for transfer to chenna. Though the Department contested the claim of the applicant in O. A. No. 373/ 2005. the Central Administrative Tribunal, bangalore Bench, in its order dated 1-2-2006 (Annexure 'b'), came to the conclusion that the applicant had a very strong case for favourable consideration of his request by the respondents for transfer to Chennai and directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representations keeping in view the various points discussed in the order of the tribunal. The respondents were directed to take a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. After considering Annexure 'b' order passed by the Tribunal, the first petitioner union of India passed Annexure 'a-15' order dated 2nd/8th March. 2006 rejecting the request of the respondent for transfer to chenna. In Annexure 'a-15' order, the first petitioner held that even though the posting of officers and their working spouses at the same station, is governed by the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and training, the guidelines inter alia provide that while deciding requests for posting husband and wife at the same station, efforts may be made to post husband and wife together as far as possible and such postings together at the same station are invariably done especially if their children are less than 10 years of age. According to the first petitioner, such contingency did not arise in the case of the respondent herein. In effect, the first petitioner held that no Officer has a vested right to claim transfer to the place of posting of his or her spouse and that the policy of the Government is only to make efforts to post husband and wife together as far as possible. But the first petitioner has noted that such postings together in the same station are invariably done, especially, if their children are less than 10 years of age. The first petitioner has further taken the view that the guidelines do not cover the case of grand-children. Since the claim of the respondent was based on the health problem of the grand-child staying with him, the first petitioner found that the above mentioned guidelines referring to children of less than 10 years of age did not apply to the case of the respondent. Regarding the claim for posting at Chennai on the ground that the respondent's wife is working at Chennai, the first petitioner h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document