Judgment:
Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Annexure-'A' order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 108/2006 and also Annexure-'B' order dated 1.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 373/2005. Both the applications were filed by Sri. S.X.J. Vasan, respondent in this Writ Petition. The petitioners were the respondents in O.A. Nos. 373/2005 and 108/2006.
2. The respondent is a Commissioner of Central Excise.While he was working as Additional Commissioner, he was transferred and posted as Additional Commissioner at Bangalore, on 12.8.2002. Later he was promoted as Commissioner on 5.11.2002 and was posted at Bangalore itself. Thus, from 12.8.2002, the respondent was working at Bangalore. On 27.4.2005, the respondent submitted an application for transfer to Chennai mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that his wife who is a Commissioner of Income Tax is working at Chennai and as per the transfer policy, husband and wife may be posted at the same station. The second ground was that the grand daughter of the respondent had health problems due to the climate in Bangalore and the Doctor had advised to shift her to Chennai. The request of the respondent for transfer to Chennai was not granted by the Department while issuing Annexure-'A-7' order dated 12.9.2005. Thereupon the respondent filed O.A. No. 373/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, questioning the decision of the Department to reject his request for transfer to Chennai. Though the Department contested the claim of the applicant in O.A. No. 373/20O5, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in its order dated 1.2.2006 (Annexure-'B'), came to the conclusion that the applicant had a very strong case for favourable consideration of his request by the respondents for transfer to Chennai and directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representations keeping in view the various points discussed in the order of the Tribunal. The respondents were directed to take a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. After considering Annexure-'B' order passed by the Tribunal, the first petitioner Union of India passed Annexure-'A-15' order dated 2nd/8th March, 2006 rejecting the request of trie respondent for transfer to Chennai. In Annexure-'A-15' order, the first petitioner held that even though the posting of officers and their working spouses at Hie same station, is governed by the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the guidelines inter-alia provide that while deciding requests for posting husband and wife at the same station, efforts may be made to post husband and wife together as far as possible and such postings together at the same station are invariably done especially if their children are less than 10 years of age. According to the first petitioner, such contingency did not arise in the case of the respondent herein. In effect, the first petitioner held that no Officer has a vested right to claim transfer to the place of posting of his or her spouse and that the policy of the Government is only to make efforts to post husband and wife together as far as possible. But the first petitioner has noted that such postings together in the same station are invariably done, especially, if their children are less than 10 years of age. The first petitioner has further taken the view that the guidelines do not cover the case of grand children. Since the claim of the respondent was based on the health problem of the grand child slaying with him, the first petitioner found that the above mentioned guidelines referring to children of less than 10 years of age did not apply to the case of the respondent. Regarding the claim for posting at Chennai on the ground that the respondent's wife is working at Chennai, the first petitioner has stated in Annexure-'A-15' order that on administrative ground, it is not always possible to synchronize the husband's and the wife's postings at the same place, especially, when such shift is in violation of the transfer policy. According to the first petitioner, the respondent is bound to complete the tenure period of six years at Bangalore and his request for transfer at this stage is premature. It is stated that if the respondent is transferred before completing the tenure period of six years prescribed under the guidelines, such transfer will be in violation of the transfer policy. It is also stated that even if the respondent's request for transfer from Bangalore before completing the period of six years is to be considered, he can be posted only to 'B' Class or 'C' Class station as per the transfer policy.
3. Aggrieved by Annexure-'A-15' order, the respondent filed O.A. No. 108/2006 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-'A' order dated 4.5.2006. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed O.A. No. 108/2006 and directed the second respondent in the application to transfer the applicant from Bangalore to Chennai as requested by him and to post him in any one of the posts of Commissioner at Chennai within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.
4. Challenging Annexure-'A' order of the Tribunal, the respondents in the O.A. filed this Writ Petition. Even though the Writ Petition was admitted on 16.5.2006, the prayer for interim relief was rejected. However, it was made clear that the transfer of the respondent, from Bangalore to Chennai would be subject to the final orders of this Court and that the respondent will not be entitled to plead equity at the time of final arguments. In view of the delay in implementing the order of the Tribunal, the respondent had filed a Contempt Petition against the respondents in the O.A. and hence by order dated 16.5.2006 this Court stayed all further proceedings in the Contempt Petition.
5. Having heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Vikram Phadke, learned Counsel for the respondent and having considered the materials placed on record, we are of the view that there was no valid and sufficient ground for the Tribunal to interfere with Annexure-'A-15' order. In our view, under the transfer policy and the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, no officer has got an enforceable legal right for a posting at the place of posting of the spouse and the Department is only obliged to make efforts to post husband and wife together as far as possible. Hence merely because the respondent's wife is working at Chennai, the respondent could not have claimed transfer to Chennai as a matter of right. As rightly pointed out by the first petitioner, on administrative ground, it is not always possible for the Department to synchronize the postings of husband and wife post at the same place, especially when such shift is in violation of the transfer policy. As pointed out by the first petitioner, under the transfer policy, the respondent was bound to complete the tenure period of six years at Bangalore and the transfer of the respondent befoix: completing the tenure period of six years will be a premature transfer. The policy of accommodating husband and wife at the same station as far as possible can be enforced or implemented only after taking into account the other relevant clauses in the transfer policy like the clause regarding the tenure period, Therefore, if the first petitioner considered it improper to give a premature transfer of the respondent to the place of posting of his spouse in view of the fact that he has not completed the tenure period of six years at Bangalore, the decision of the first petitioner cannot be said to be wrong or illegal or arbitrary. Hence the Tribunal was not right or justified in finding fault with the decision of the first petitioner. We are also of the view that the health problem of the grand child is not a ground on which the respondent could have sought transfer under the transfer policy. The clause contained in the transfer policy regarding the children of the Officer is not applicable to the grand children of the Officer, Hence the finding of the first petitioner that the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training do not cover grand children is correct.
6. It would appear that the Tribunal was influenced by the fact that the petitioners had not challenged Annexure-'B' order dated 1.2.2006 passed in O.A. No. 373/2005 and that the petitioner had accepted the said order. According to the Tribunal, in the light of Annexure-'B' order passed in O.A. No. 373/2005, the Department had no option other than granting the request of the respondent for transfer from Bangalore to Chennai. We find it difficult to approve the above view taken by the Tribunal. In paragraph 21 of Annexure-'B' order, the Tribunal had only stated that it had come to the conclusion that the applicant had a very strong ease for favourable consideration of his request: by the respondent for transfer to Chennai and had only directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representations keeping in view the various points discussed in the order. If the respondents in the O.A. had no option other than granting the request for transfer to Chennai, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to leave the matter to their consideration and decision and the Tribunal itself could have directed the respondents to transfer the applicant to Chennai. Having left the decision to the respondents in the O.A. and having not directed to consider the request de hors the transfer policy and the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view that since Annexure-'B' order was accepted by the Department, the Department was bound to grant the request of the applicant for transfer to Chennai. It is tine that in Annexurc-'B' order, the Tribunal had made several observations favourable to the applicant. Still the question is whether the decision contained in Annexure-'A-15' order of the first petitioner can be justified in the light of the transfer policy and the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. If the decision of the first petitioner is right and can be justified under the transfer policy and the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Annexure-'B' order could not stand in the way of taking such a decision by he first petitioner. As we have already held, the decision contained in Annexure-'A-15' order of the first petitioner is in accordance with the transfer policy and the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. Hence, notwithstanding Annexure-'B' order passed by the Tribunal, Annexure-'A-15' order was not liable to be interfered with by the Central Administrative Tribunal. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases, the Courts and the Tribunals should be reluctant and slow to interfere with administrative orders passed by the competent authorities effecting postings and transfers of the Government employees in accordance with the transfer policy and guidelines. Unless there is very patent and serious violation of the transfer policy and guidelines which resulted in serious prejudice and grave injustice to the Government employee, the Courts and the Tribunals will not be justified in interfering with the orders passed by the competent authorities in the matter of the postings and transfers of Government employees.
7. In the light of the facts and circumstances stated above and for the reasons mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, we hold that Amiexure-'A' order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A. No. 108/2006 is liable to be set aside. Hence Amiexure-'A' order is set aside.
8. However, we take note of the fact that during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the respondent was transferred to Chennai on 22.6.2006 and he is working at Chennai since then. It is also brought to our notice that the respondent is due to retire 011 30.11.2008. It means that the respondent has got less than two years to retire from service. It is also the admitted position that the wife of the respondent is working at Chennai. Considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the respondent need not be re-transferred to Bangalore on the ground that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been set aside. Interest of justice requires that the respondent is allowed to continue at Chennai pursuant to the order passed by the first petitioner on 22.6.2006. However, we make it dear that this order will not stand in the way of the respondent being transferred out of Chennai for any other valid administrative reason.
9. The Writ Petition is disposed in the above terms.