$~74 & 75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14385/2021 & CM APPL. 45348/2021 SUMIT KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Sarthak Dubey, Ms. Nikita Motwani, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Akash Mishra & Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 11570/2022 VIPIN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Sarthak Dubey, Mr. Sparsh Jain, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 08.10.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The writ petitioners in these petitions are Constables in the Railway Protection Force¹. Sumit Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) 14385/2021 is posted at Malda in West Bengal, whereas Vipin Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) 11570/2022 is posted at Bhavnagar in Gujarat.

2. Pooja, the wife of Sumit Kumar, is working as a Teacher in a school run by the State of Uttar Pradesh at Bijnor, whereas Neha Kumari, the wife of Vipin Kumar, is working as an Assistant Teacher in Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. They are both employees of the state of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioners sought transfer to a place where their respective spouses were posted or to a proximate place of posting, invoking, for the said purpose, Clause 3(d) of circular dated 2 February 2010, issued by the Railway Board, which reads thus:

“3. The guidelines as framed by DOP&T in view of the 6^th CPC, have been examined in this ministry and it has been decided to adopt these with certain modifications. Accordingly provisions of guidelines issued under board’s letter dated 5.11.97 ibid have been modified as under:

*****

d. WHERE ONE OF THE SPOUSE IS A RAILWAY SERVANT AND THE OTHER BELONGS TO A STATE SERVICE.

The railway servant should be posted close to the station / place in the Railway / Division / PU in whose territorial jurisdiction the place/ station of posting of his/her spouse falls. If it is not possible, if a request from the railway servant to the controlling authority the spouse for his/ her posting at the place of posting of the railway servant is received the same may be forwarded to the concerned authority for sympathetic consideration.”

4. The petitioners’ representations were disposed of by the respondents by identical orders dated 22 October 2021 (in the case of Sumit Kumar) and 17 August 2020 (in the case of Vipin Kumar) along with similar requests of several other employees.

5. In each case, the ground for rejecting the representations, at that stage, was the same, and reads thus:

“Their spouses are working as Teacher & other non-transferrable jobs. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a transferrable job involving dislocation. Since, we have very limited vacancies for Inter Railway transfer right now, these cases of spouse working in non-transferrable job may not be considered at present. However, they will be free to apply later.”

6. Mr. Amit Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents are in error in refusing the petitioners’ requests for transfer on the ground that their wives were in non-transferrable jobs and that, therefore, there would be no dislocation.

7. Having perused the orders dated 22 October 2021 and 17 August 2020, whereby the petitioners’ requests for transfer were rejected, we are not in agreement with Mr. Dubey that the reason for rejection was that their wives were in non-transferrable jobs. The fact that the petitioners’ spouses were in non-transferrable jobs is not in dispute. Clause 3(d) of the Railway Board Circular dated 2 February 2010 envisages posting of the railway employee close to his spouse, if it is possible to do so. If it is not possible to do so, the Clause envisages the employee approaching the employer of the spouse to transfer the spouse and, in that event, forwarding of the application by the Railway Authorities, seeking a com