Hon’ble B.K. Srivastava-II, J.—The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Consolidation Officer in the year 1994 and had worked on the said post since 7.9.1994 to 24.7.1997 at district Banda and thereafter he has been promoted on the post of Consolidation Officer and had worked since 25.7.1997 to 24.7.2004 at district Azamgarh and in District Hamirpur from 5.7.2008 to 20.5.2012 and in district Lucknow from 21.5.2012 to 25.7.2012 and thereafter he has been further promoted on the post of Settlement Officer consolidation and posted at Allahabad since 26.7.2012 till the passing of the transfer order dated 26.6.2014 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Allahabad to Lalitpur.

2. Against the transfer order dated 26.6.2014, the wife of the petitioner, who claims to be an Assistant Teacher in Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad has made a representation dated 27.6.2014 before the respondent No. 1-Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, U.P. Lucknow stating therein that she is also a Government servant posted in Allahabad, hence in light of Clause 1-D of the transfer policy, the petitioner is entitled to be transferred at the said place and further that the prescribed period under the policy having not expired, it would be a mid term transfer insofar as it relates to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 941 (SB) of 2014 [Matadin Maurya v. State of U.P. and others] and the Division Bench of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 7.7.2014 has passed the following order:

“We have heard Sri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Notice need not be issued to the respondent No. 4 in view of the order being passed herein.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner Consolidation, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transfer Policy dated 4.6.2014 filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition provides that when the husband and wife both are Government servant then as far as possible they should be transferred at the same place. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been posted as Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Allahabad since past two years and as such in light of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner could not have been transferred prior to expiry of the prescribed period given therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-6 to the writ petition, which is a representation made on 27.6.2014 by the wife of the petitioner, who claims to be an Assistant Teacher in Arya Kanya Intermediate College, Allahabad and therefore, submits that when the wife of the petitioner is also a Government servant posted in Allahabad, hence in light of Clause 1-D of the transfer policy, the petitioner is entitled to be transferred at the said place and further that the prescribed period under the policy having not expired, it would be a mid term transfer insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

We find from the record that the transfer policy has provided that as far as possible the husband and wife, if they are both Government servant should be posted at the same place and no representation can be made by the Government Servant against his transfer in light of Clause 14 of the said transfer policy. We are aware that the transfer policy is not enforceable in law however, the transfer policy which has been brought out by the Government is for the benefit of the employee and we find no reason as to why the Authority would not consider the grievance of the wife of the petitioner who also claims to be a Government servant.

Under such circumstances, we find that the petitioner’s wife has already made a representation dated 27.6.2014 filed as Annexure-6 to the writ pe