( 1 ) RULE. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got two minor children, one is infant of four months. It is further contended that there is an office Memorandum dated 12. 6. 1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and training) (which is at page No. 41 of the paper book) inter alia, stating that spouse should be posted at the same Station where the other spouse is working to enable them to lead a normal family life and look after the welfare of the children especially till the children are 10 years of age.

( 2 ). Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not availed die spouse posting in her 10 years service and is working at Hindon (Ghaziabad) w. e. f, 4. 5. 1998, and now she is transferred at Silchar (Assam), husband of the petitioner is residing in Delhi.

( 3 ). On the other hand Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Office memorandum dated 12. 6. 1997 is not mandatory and the respondents are governed by their own policy which is placed at page Nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book. Counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the aforesaid letter which is to the following effect:

"there are likely to be a number of grounds, due to any one or more of which, an officer may submit such an application. Some of these may be low medical category, serious illness of family member, last tenure posting, marriage of self or children education, house construction, financial reasons, husband s place of posting etc. Any officer submitting such application must specify the reason/reasons and indicate all relevant facts and attach documentary evidence. It should be indicated as to why the objective for which applications have been made, cannot partly or fully be met/achieved in case her request is not acceded to, as also the time that would be required by her to achieve the objective. All these and relevant factors be incorporated in the application, it is not practicable to be more detailed and specific on the issue but the concerned officer has to visualise the relevant facts and material in support of her request".

( 4 ). I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties. The petitioner is working with Military Nursing service, nature of the service itself is that the petitioner can be posted anywhere as the service is dedicated to the cause of keeping the men in uniform at all places in perfect health by providing adequate nursing services. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise any interfere in transfer and posting of the officers of the Military Nursing services until and unless any transfer or posting is malafide or not in consonance with the policy of the respondent itself. From the perusal of the policy which has been placed by the Counsel for the respondent, said policy does not take into consideration the situation which is in hand before me in this case. Four months old infant even if allowed to be taken by the petitioner to any station would be a hindrance in performance of the duty of the petitioner rather than any support. The welfare of the child has to be taken into consideration in any policy. After perusal of the policy (which is at page Nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book) formulated by the respondent, i do not see any consideration given in that policy to a situation where the officer is having infant of young age.

( 5 ). I direct the respondent to frame a policy in this regard so as to avoid any harassment to such kind of cases where the officer is having very young children.

( 6 ). It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the mother-in-law and father-in-law are no more and the parents of the petitioner are sick and they cannot look after the infant of four and a half months old.

( 7 ). In the circumstances, I direct that till the infant is one year four months old