O R D E R

% 07.04.2022 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

1.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 nece