SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Swarana Kanta Sharma, JJ.
Govt. Of West Bengal - Appellant
Versus
Arsh Verma & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2262 of 2022 and CM Appl. 6511 of 2022 (Stay)
Decided On : 07-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, for the Appellant; Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Ms. Ridam Arora, Ms. Alisha Saini, Ms. Harshika Verma, Advocates for, Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Ms. Bushra Kazim, Mr. Karan Chhibber, Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of respecting the right to a healthy family life and parenthood in considering cadre transfer requests, and the need for compassion from the State in balancing career duties with family responsibilities.

Headnote:

Cadre Transfer - IPS Officer - All India Service Officers-Policy - [All India Service Officers-Policy] - The court discussed the All India Service Officers-Policy and its application to cadre transfer requests, emphasizing the importance of balancing career duties with the right to a healthy family life and parenthood. The court highlighted the need for compassion from the State in considering cadre transfer requests, especially in cases involving starting a family and the right to parenthood.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Government of West Bengal, challenged the order directing it to reconsider the request of an IPS officer for cadre transfer on marriage and compassionate grounds. The officer's wife was posted in a different state, and he also needed to take care of his ailing widowed mother. The petitioner argued shortage of officers and discretion of the State, while the officer emphasized the need to be stationed with his family.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's arguments were outweighed by the need to respect the right to a healthy family life and parenthood of the officer, especially considering the urgency of starting a family. The court relied on previous judgments and the All India Service Officers-Policy to direct the petitioner to relieve the officer within a specified period.

Issues: The issues involved the discretion of the State in cadre transfer requests, the balance between career duties and family life, and the urgency of starting a family for the officer.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the All India Service Officers-Policy, the right to a healthy family life and parenthood, and the need for compassion from the State in considering cadre transfer requests.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the State of West Bengal to relieve the officer within a specified period, emphasizing the urgency of starting a family and the need for compassion in considering cadre transfer requests.

ORDER

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral). - The petitioner, Government of West Bengal, impugns the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ('Tribunal') directing it to reconsider the request of respondent no. 1 for issuance of 'No Objection' keeping in view of the guidelines issued by respondent no. 2 herein (Union of India) and decisions rendered by the courts.

2. Respondent no. 1 is an IPS Officer of 2017 batch and was allotted West Bengal cadre. After getting married to Smt. Nikita Khattar, an IPS officer of Haryana cadre, he applied for cadre transfer/change of cadre on 'marriage ground', under All India Service Officers-Policy, from West Bengal to Haryana. The latter has given its 'no objection' for the said proposal but the Government of West Bengal/petitioner had not so conceded. Subsequently, after the demise of his father, the respondent no. 1 herein made a detailed representation to the petitioner for his cadre transfer, to also facilitate him to take care of his ailing widowed mother.

3. In the absence of any worthwhile response from the petitioner, the respondent no. 1 sought relief before the Tribunal. His OA was allowed and the petitioner was directed to reconsider his request.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that: i) there is an extreme shortage of officers since a number of officers have sought transfer from West Bengal Cadre on various grounds, including the ground on account of their marriage to officers belonging to other State cadres; ii) the petitioner is a male and there are no urgencies of duties towards the family which could require the State to relieve him and iii) it is the discretion of the State to do so in light of the fact that there is a shortage of officers in the State.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent has not been able to start a family, as his wife is posted in a different State, nor is he able to take care of his family and his ailing widowed mother; he says that he needs to be stationed at the same place as them. He further submits that while deciding such cases, the authorities may well keep it in mind that the young officers, who are stationed at different places having different State Cadres will find it difficult to even start their family.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case is no longer res integra and the same has been decided by the various judgments of this Court.

7. The issue raised in this petition stands decided against the petitioner herein by way of the following Division Bench judgments:

    (i) In Bhavna Gupta vs. The Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) No. 13444/2019 decided on 3.02.2020]: The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein below:-

    "11. Reading of the above-cited Government Policy leaves no room for doubt that the same would apply to the petitioner. The petitioner waited patiently for two years after making her first representation to the State of West Bengal; and only after having received no response did she approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted six weeks time to the State of West Bengal to consider the petitioner's representation; however no response has yet been received to that representation.

    xxx xxx xxx

    13. Counsel for the State of West Bengal now submits that a 'No Objection ' cannot be granted in view of certain proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court. With the highest regard for the Calcutta High Court and with full deference to the comity of courts, we have queried counsel for the State of West Bengal to point-out any order where the Calcutta High Court has restrained the transfer of the petitioner; or by which the petitioner has been ordered to remain present in court; or any order to even show that the petitioner's presence is necessary in West Bengal for the proceedings pending in court. No such order or direction or requirem

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top