Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1654

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Narendra Kr. Johari, Judicial Member, Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Shipra Shalini Aind – Appellant
Versus
Government of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) – Respondent
O.A. 051/00507/2025

Advocates:
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Counsel
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, ASC

Spouse posting policy requires specific reasons for denial; vague 'public interest' insufficient, allowing promotion relinquishment for retention.

Headnote:The DoP&T OM No. 28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) dated 30.09.2009 mandates posting spouses at the same station where feasible, particularly when one holds a non-transferable post, requiring specific reasons for denial (Para 5). Applicant, a Junior Translator promoted and transferred despite spouse policy option, faced family separation hardship with minor children and health issues, offering to relinquish promotion. Court found prior recognition of policy in applicant's earlier transfer but no specific reasons given for current denial, violating transparency requirements. Issues framed around compliance with spouse posting policy, refusal to allow promotion relinquishment, and non-communication of specific administrative reasons. Ratio: Authorities must provide cogent reasons for denying spouse posting requests; mere 'public interest' assertion insufficient. Transfer policy (circular 23.09.2024, Para 4.10) allows station retention up to 7 years if promotion declined, applicable here as tenure short and Junior Translator post available. Original Application allowed; impugned transfer order quashed with direction to reconsider posting per policy within 60 days, considering willingness to forego promotion. Costs on parties.

Table of Content
1. applicant's appointment, spouse policy option, ignored promotion-transfer causing hardship. (Para 1)
2. respondents defend transfer per service conditions, prior spouse benefit availed. (Para 2)
3. court notes policy applicability, prior recognition, no specific denial reasons given. (Para 3)
4. quash transfer for non-compliance; reconsider with reasons per spouse guidelines. (Para 4)

ORDER

Per : Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Judicial Member

1. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in her OA, are delineated and discussed herein under :-

The applicant was appointed as Junior Translator in the office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) on 16.07.2012 at Ranchi, Jharkhand. On 13.05.2025, options for choice of station were invited from employees, and in compliance thereof, the applicant submitted her option on 14.05.2025 seeking her retention at Ranchi. The applicant exercised her option particularly in light of the DoP&T OM No. 28034/9/2009-Estt. (A) dated 30.09.2009 for retaining her posting on the spouse ground at the same station, as her husband is working as a Section Officer in the Jharkhand Secretariat at Ranchi, which is a non-transferable post.

Contrary to her exercised option and the applicable government policy, the applicant received a promotion-cum- transfer order dated 18.06.2025, transferring her from the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Manipur, Imphal. The applicant came to know about her transfer only upon issuance of the said order. Immediately thereafter, she submitted a representation requesting retention at Ranchi on spouse ground in terms of the DoP&T OM dated 30.09.2009. She also submitted that in case her retention at Ranchi was not feasible, she was willing to relinquish her promotion to the post of Senior Translator.

However, the request of the applicant was not acceded to. The Senior Administrative Officer (Staff Apptt.-IV), vide letter dated 10.07.2025 addressed to the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, communicated that the competent authority had not approved the applicant’s request to forego her promotion and directed that she be relieved to join at the office of Accountant General (A&E), Manipur, Imphal.

The rejection of the applicant’s request is contrary to the established government policy contained in the DoP&T OM dated 30.09.2009, which specifically provides that, as far as possible, spouses should be posted at the same station. The applicant squarely falls within the ambit of the said policy, particularly because her husband holds a non-transferable post at Ranchi, making relocation of the family to Manipur practically impossible.

It is further submitted that similarly situated employees have been adjusted and accommodated at the same station in accordance with the spouse posting policy. However, the case of the applicant has not been properly and fairly considered. The applicant was deeply shocked and mentally disturbed upon receiving the impugned promotion-cum-transfer order. Owing to the sudden and unexpected decision of the authorities, as a grave personal hardship involved, the applicant’s health deteriorated, and she fell ill. Consequently, she was not in a position to join at the transferred place of posting at Imphal.

It is submitted that due to her medical condition, the applicant was constrained to submit an application for leave on medical grounds. The medical examination and treatment papers in support of her illness have been annexed as Annexure-C to M.A. No. 457/2025 and as Annexure-B series to M.A. No. 629/2025. The applicant duly informed the concerned authorities regarding her illness and her inability to join her transferred place of posting by way of communication annexed as Annexure-B to M.A. No. 457/2025.

Challenging the transfer order, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document