Back
Rejects Discrimination Claim Over Haryana's 10-Mark Couple Benefit
The has upheld the Model Online Transfer Policy dated issued by the , rejecting a challenge that it discriminates against employees whose spouses are posted outside Delhi, Haryana or Chandigarh.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal dismissed two writ petitions—CWP-23188-2026 () and CWP-25824-2026 ()—on .
The Policy Under Fire
The policy grants 10 marks under a "couple case" clause to employees whose spouses are posted in Delhi, Haryana or Chandigarh. It does not extend the same benefit to employees whose spouses are posted in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh or Rajasthan, though all three States also border Haryana.
The petitioners argued that confining the 10-mark benefit to spouses posted in Delhi, Haryana or Chandigarh, while excluding those in bordering States, was unjust and arbitrary. They further contended that excluding parents from the definition of "family" for the benefit given where a family member has a debilitating disease caused prejudice, and that the definition of "blocked posts" under Clause 3(i) was liable to be set aside due to potential misuse.
Senior counsel for the petitioners also argued that the 10-mark couple-case benefit, being extended to male employees, violated of the .
State's Defense
The State of Haryana clarified that the 10-mark benefit was confined to Delhi, Haryana and Chandigarh because the has offices in these places, unlike in UP, Rajasthan or Punjab. On parents, it said a large number of employees have parents of old age, and the State had therefore confined the benefit to the immediate family—spouse, son and daughter. Regarding blocked posts, the State argued that a mere possibility of misuse, without any instance of actual misuse, cannot be a ground to strike down a policy clause. It also asserted that a transfer policy is not , being guidelines rather than an .
Court's Reasoning: No to Challenge Transfer Policy
The High Court held that a transfer policy is only a framed by the State to facilitate transfers and confers no . It relied on the 's decision in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022), which held that transfer is an and an employee has no to a transfer or posting of choice. The Court also referred to Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta (1992), which held that while spouses should ordinarily be posted together as far as practicable, this does not confer a right to a posting of choice.
The Bench further relied on its own Division Bench judgment in Mool Chand Tewatia v. Union of India (2016) and the 's decision in Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2024), which held that of transfer orders is not permissible absent pleadings of , of the person alleged to be responsible, , or detriment to an employee holding a transferable post.
Upheld
On the 10-mark benefit, the Court accepted the State's clarification that it maintains offices only in Delhi, Haryana and Chandigarh, and not in Punjab, UP or Rajasthan. The Court observed,
"there is a
with the objective sought to be achieved and it cannot be said that grant of such marks in such cases is
."
Gender Argument Dismissed
The Court rejected the argument that the benefit was being granted only to male employees. It stated,
"It cannot be said that a benefit can be denied or granted on the basis of gender of an employee concerned. Hence, every employee is to be considered for grant of benefit irrespective of the gender concerning such employee. Thus, it cannot be said that the grant of 10 marks to male employees whose spouses are posted at other Stations is unjust or arbitrary."
Blocked Posts and Parent Exclusion
On "blocked posts," the Court held that the possibility of misuse of a policy provision cannot render it , especially since the policy was yet to be implemented. On the exclusion of parents from the disease-related benefit, the Court found no grounds to interfere, noting that the State's decision was a .
Key Observations
-
"Transfer policy is only a framed by the State in order to facilitate the transfer of the employees from one place of posting to another."
-
"There is a with the objective sought to be achieved and it cannot be said that grant of such marks in such cases is ."
-
"It cannot be said that a benefit can be denied or granted on the basis of gender of an employee concerned."
Final Decision
The Court found no ground to hold the transfer policy violative of of the . Both petitions were dismissed, and pending applications disposed of. The decision reinforces the principle that transfer policies are administrative guidelines, not legally enforceable rights, and that judicial interference is limited to cases of or statutory violation.
