Delhi High Court - Orders
Kritika Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 April, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri, Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~19(1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14246/2021, CM APPL. 44919/2021 & CM APPL.
4909/2022
KRITIKA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Ms.
Prachi Nirwan and Ms. Tanima Gaur
Panigrahi, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup, CGSC with Ms.
Nidhi Mittal, Mr. Mohit Prasad and
Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Advocate for R-
1.
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Standing
Counsel with Mr. Manoj Mishra, Mr.
Amol Chitravanshi and Mr. Aman
Pathak, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 07.04.2022 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
1. The petitioner is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service 2014 batch in the West Bengal cadre. She desires a transfer to the Uttar Pradesh cadre, where her husband too serves as an IAS officer. She so desires so as to have a modicum of family life for herself, her husband, and their two-year old son. Their son suffers from Multiple Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 1 of 17 13:06:13 Inflammatory Syndrome and possibly Kawasaki disease. In the compelling medical circumstances, both parents require each other's support as well as uninterrupted vigil apropos the afflicted child's care.
2. The State of West Bengal is not agreeable to accede to the petitioner's request. Instead, it would that her husband seeks a transfer from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal, where he will be welcomed by the latter. The court would note that it is not the husband who desires a transfer to the State of West Bengal but it is the petitioner, who desires a transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Surely, one State cannot ask for an officer serving in another State to seek a transfer to maintain family life. It is the right of the petitioner- the officer seeking the transfer which has to be considered.
3. The impugned order, passed on 26.10.2021 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench had found all factors in favour of the petitioner and had therefore directed the State of West Bengal/R-2 to reconsider the petitioner's request for issuance of a 'No Objection' for her to be transferred from the State of West Bengal to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indeed, the contents of the impugned order had made it easy for the State of West Bengal to facilitate the grant of 'No Objection'. However, by communication dated 23.12.2021 the State of West Bengal rejected the application for grant of 'No Objection', primarily on the following grounds:
"...
However, the main spirit of the guidelines issued by the DoPT, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India vide OM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 2 of 17 13:06:13 No.13017/16/2003-AIS-I dated 08.11.2004 is to keep the married couple in one place but it does not confer any right to the officer to demand for any specific cadre. There cannot be a rigid exposition that it would apply to the wife only.
Moreover, to reduce the hardship of the officer concerned, the Government of West Bengal proactively proposed to consider for according no objection if the spouse of the applicant applies for cadre change to West Bengal cadre.
That judicial order/s is/are matters of record which have been passed based on the facts and circumstances of each and individual case and needs to be dealt separately.
That it is to mention here that though Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the SLP(C) No.7986/2021 titled as "The State of West Bengal vs Gandharva Rathore & Ors." but it appears that no general guidelines/orders on the issue of cadre transfer on marriage grounds by IAS officers, have been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus it is to be treated separately as a different case matter.
However, Special Leave Petitions have already been filed by the Government of West Bengal challenging the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi on some identical and similar matters and all are pending for adjudication.
Based upon the above stated facts, records, related statutory provisions/rules, relevant judgments and owing to pending decisions before Hon'ble Apex Court of India on some similar and identical matters filed by the State Government, at present, it is not possible to grant/issue 'No objection Certificate' to the applicant concerned for her inter-cadre transfer on the ground of marriage.
Hence, the matter is considered afresh, rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Please inform all concerned."
4. An order granting similar relief as sought by the petitioner was passed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 3 of 17 13:06:13 in Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru vs. Union of India & Ors., in W.P.(C) 5533/2021 on 16.11.2021. The learned counsel for R-2 submits that SLP(C) No. 20825/2021, against the aforesaid order, is under consideration before the Supreme Court, therefore, till then this case be held over. She admits though, that the interim relief sought in the SLP was denied.
5. In effect, the High Court order would need to be implemented. The petitioner being in an identical position, she would be entitled to the same benefit as has been granted in Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru (supra). Furthermore, this court in Nidhi Malik vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (CONT.CAS(C) 293/2021), considered an identical situation and on 12.10.2021 directed that the order of the Division Bench in Nidhi Malik vs. Union of India and Another, W.P.(C) 10874/2020 dated 06.01.2021, be implemented. In view of Division Bench order, no scope was left to the State of West Bengal to consider the matter on merits but to issue a release order to Nidhi Malik. Similar orders were passed in Bhavna Gupta vs. The Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) 13444/2019 dated 03.02.2020) and State of West Bengal vs. Gandharva Rathore & Ors., (W.P.(C) No. 4048/2021 dated 28.05.2021). In Nidhi Malik (CONT. CAS(C) 293/2021) supra, this court held, inter-alia, as under:
"...
4. Subsequently, another Division Bench of this Court on 28.05.2021 in W.P.(C) No. 4048/2021 (State Of West Bengal v. Gandharva Rathore & Ors.) also issued similar directions, inter alia, as under:
"...2. The State of West Bengal impugns the order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 4 of 17 13:06:13 dated 04th December, 2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing OA No.3579/2019 preferred by the respondent no.1 impugning non-grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for change of her cadre in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from West- Bengal to Himachal Pradesh, to an officer of which cadre the respondent no. 1 has been married. By way of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to issue NOC/consent for cadre transfer of the respondent No. 1 from the State of West Bengal to Himachal Pradesh.
3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for some time to obtain instructions. Though it was made clear that no adjournment would be granted today, yet learned counsel for the petitioner states that due to cyclone 'Yaas', it has not been possible to obtain instructions.
4. However, the request for adjournment is opposed by learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 on the ground that the cyclone has not affected the State Secretariat situated at Kolkata and even after the last date of hearing, some officials have been transferred.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to obtain instructions, the prayer for adjournment is declined and the matter is taken up forbearing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is an extreme shortage of officers as a number of officers have sought transfer from the West Bengal cadre on account of their marriage to officers belonging to other State cadres.
7. However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present ease is no longer res integra and the same stands decided against the petitioner by way of the following three Division Bench judgments:-Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 5 of 17 13:06:13
(1) Bhavna Gupta vs. The Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)No.13444/2019. 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 necessary in West Bengal for the proceedings pending in court. No such order or direction or requirement has been brought to our notice.
xxx xxx xxx
16. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition directing that the petitioner be relieved within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
(2) Ms. Loganayagi Divya Vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No.3927/2020. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"4. In our view, there can be absolutely no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 6 of 17 13:06:13 justification for the State of West Bengal not relieving the petitioner to enable her to join the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha. This shows complete apathy on the part of the State of West Bengal - which cannot be countenanced. We are left with no alternative, but to issue directions to enable the petitioner to join her post in the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha.
5. Accordingly, we declare that the petitioner stands forthwith relieved from her post in the IPS Cadre of the State of West Bengal. No further orders would be required to be passed by the State of West Bengal in this regard. We direct the State of Odisha to treat this order as a relieving order of the petitioner to enable her to join her post in the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha."
(3) The State of West Bengal vs. Raj Karan Nayyar & Anr., WP(C) No. 11966/2018. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Considering the overall circumstance, we grant time to the petitioner up to 28.02.2019 to relieve the respondent No. 1 so that he can join his services with the State of U.P. It is made clear that no further extension shall be sought or granted and, in case, no express order is passed relieving the respondent No.1 from his services by the State of West Bengal, he shall be deemed to have been relieved on 28.02.2019 and it shall be open to him to join the services with the State of UP."
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the present writ petition is dismissed and the State of West Bengal is directed to relieve the respondent no. 1 within eight weeks. In the event, the respondent no.1 is not relieved within the aforesaid stipulated period, she shall be deemed to have been relieved by virtue of the order of this Court..."
(emphasis supplied)
5. SLP No.7986/2021 preferred by the State of West Bengal against the aforesaid order dated 28.05.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 7 of 17 13:06:13 passed by the Division Bench of this court was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.07.2021 (Annexure-A2 page 262).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon judgments of the Supreme Court which have held inter alia as under: -
(a) Kshiti Goswami and Others vs. Subrata Kundu and Others (2013) 11 SCC 618:-
"11. ...He made strenuous effort to persuade us to take the view in exercise of contempt jurisdiction the High Court cannot issue direction for implementation of the order, violation of which led to the initiation of the contempt proceedings, but we have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Rather, we are in complete agreement with the High Court that one of the objects of the contempt jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to ensure faithful implementation of the direction given by it. This is precisely what the Division Bench of the High Court has done in this case. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground or justification to entertain the petitioners' challenge to the impugned order....."
(b) Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs. Union Of India And Others (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 273:
"20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, the courts are primarily concerned with enquiring whether the contemnor is guilty of intentional and wilful violation of the orders of the court, even to constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lis before the court, and even otherwise, is expected to obey the orders of the court in its true spirit and substance. Every person, is required to respect and obey the orders of the court with due dignity for the institution. The government departments are no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 8 of 17 13:06:13 exception to it. The departments or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per orders of the court and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the court, least that is expected of the government department or its functionaries is to approach the court for extension of time or clarifications, if called for. But, where the party neither obeys the orders of the court nor approaches the court making appropriate prayers for extension of time or variation of order, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the orders of the court. In other words, it is intentionally not carrying out the orders of the court. Flagrant violation of the court's orders would reflect the attitude of the party concerned to undermine the authority of the courts, its dignity and the administration of justice.
21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, (1995) 2 SCC 584, this Court held that: (SCC p. 617, para 39) "39. ... judiciary has a special and additional duty to perform viz. to oversee that all individuals and institutions including the executive and the legislature act within the framework of not only the law but also the fundamental law of the land. This duty is apart from the function of adjudicating the disputes between the parties which is essential to peaceful and orderly development of the society. ... dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs."
22. Another very important aspect even of the civil contempt is, "what is the attribution of the contemnor?" There may be cases of disobedience where the respondent commits acts and deeds leading to actual disobedience of the orders of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 9 of 17 13:06:13 court. Such contemnor may flout the orders of the court openly, intentionally and with no respect for the rule of law. While in some other cases of civil contempt, disobedience is the consequence or inference of a dormant or passive behaviour on the part of the contemnor. Such would be the case where the contemnor does not take steps and just remains unmoved by the directions of the court. As such, even in cases where no positive/active role is directly attributable to a person, still, his passive and dormant attitude of inaction may result in violation of the orders of the court and may render him liable for an action of contempt.
xxx xxx xxx
26. It is also of some relevance to note that disobedience of court orders by positive or active contribution or non-obedience by a passive and dormant conduct leads to the same result.
Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted, the dignity and authority of the courts have to be respected and protected at all costs (refer T.N. Godavarnam Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot (2006) 5 SCC 1, SCC p. 6, para 5). The proceedings before the highest court of the land in a public interest litigation, attain even more significance. These are the cases which come up for hearing before the court on a grievance raised by the public at large or public-spirited persons. The State itself places matters before the Court for determination which would fall, statutorily or otherwise, in the domain of the executive authority.
27. It is where the State and its instrumentalities Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 10 of 17 13:06:13 have failed to discharge its statutory functions or have acted adversely to the larger public interest that the courts are called upon to interfere in exercise of their extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure maintenance of the rule of law. These are the cases which have impact in rem or on larger section of the society and not in personam simpliciter. Courts are called upon to exercise jurisdiction with twin objects in mind. Firstly, to punish the persons who have disobeyed or not carried out orders of the court i.e. for their past conduct. Secondly, to pass such orders, including imprisonment and use the contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance with its orders in future. This principle has been applied in the United States and Australia as well.
28. For execution of the orders of the court even committal for an indefinite term has been accepted under Australian law [Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union v. Mudginberri Station (Pty) Ltd.] and American law, though this is no longer permissible under English law. While referring to detention of a person for a long period to ensure execution of the orders in Nevitt, In re, 117 F448 (1902) at p. 461, Sanborn, J. observed that the person subjected to such a term "carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket".
29. Lethargy, ignorance, official delays and absence of motivation can hardly be offered as any defence in an action for contempt. Inordinate delay in complying with the orders of the courts has also received judicial criticism. It is inappropriate for the parties concerned to keep the execution of the court's orders in abeyance for an inordinate period. Inaction or even dormant behaviour by the officers in the. highest echelons in the hierarchy of the Government in complying with the directions/orders of this Court certainly amounts to disobedience. Inordinate delay of years in complying with the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 11 of 17 13:06:13 orders of the court or in complying with the directed stipulations within the prescribed time, has been viewed by this Court seriously and held to be the contempt of court, as it undermines the dignity of the court. Reference in this regard can be made to Maniyeri Madhavan v. Inspector of Police12 and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh13. Even a lackadaisical attitude, which itself may not be deliberate or wilful, have not been held to be a sufficient ground of defence in a contempt proceeding. Obviously, the purpose is to ensure compliance with the orders of the court at the earliest and within stipulated period."
..."
6. In the aforequoted contempt case, the respondent was held guilty of having committed contempt of court. However, the apology tendered by the respondent was accepted because before the stage of sentencing the petitioner concerned had been released from West Bengal IAS Cadre. The SLP(C) No. 58/2022, against the aforesaid contempt order, was dismissed. The issue of grant of 'No Objection' to an officer seeking inter-cadre transfer as per rules, stands settled.
7. In view of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner had sought 'No Objection' from the State of West Bengal. Her case has been encapsulated by the impugned order as under:
"...
6. The allocation of officers of the AIS takes place at the threshold of their career. Since most of the candidates are selected and appointed when they are relatively young, they get married after entering into service. In case, both the spouses remain at the same or proximate places, it would be easier for them to manage their careers and households simultaneously. However, if the spouse of such officer hails from a different cadre, its impact would naturally be felt on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 12 of 17 13:06:13 quality of service rendered by them. Obviously, for that reason, the Government of India framed a policy in 2009 providing for change of cadre of officers of AIS, in case he or she is married to another officer of AIS, belonging to a different cadre.
7. The issue pertaining to transfer of AIS officers from one cadre to another, is governed by Rule 5 (2) of IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. The guidelines were also issued in this behalf in the year 2004. The only condition is that the marriage of an officer of AIS of a particular cadre must be with another officer of AIS belonging to another cadre. In other words, the transfer of cadre cannot be permitted, if the marriage is to a person, who does not belong to AIS.
..."
8. The OA was allowed. The respondent was to pass an order apropos issuance of 'No Objection', keeping in view the Guidelines issued by the Government of India and the judgments of the learned Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Despite the above, the application for 'No Objection' has been rejected. Clearly, the rejection is in the face of settled law. The fact that an Officer seeking inter-cadre transfer to be with their spouse largely for a fuller matrimonial life, indeed to save the matrimony itself and for the benefit of the children, had been ignored in the rejection order.
9. In the context of inter-commissionerate transfer of officers for the sake of spouses to be in the same commissionerate, the Supreme Court has as recent as on 10.03.2022 observed in SK Nausad Rahaman and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 297, as under:
"...
50. The Court emphasized that discrimination is not always a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 13 of 17 13:06:13 function or product of a conscious design or intent. Discrimination may result by an unconscious bias or a failure to recognize unequal impacts which are produced by the underlying societal structure. In paragraph 83 of the judgment in Nitisha (supra), the Court held:
"83. A study of the above cases and scholarly works gives rise to the following key learnings. First, the doctrine of indirect discrimination is founded on the compelling insight that discrimination can often be a function, not of conscious design or malicious intent, but unconscious/implicit biases or an inability to recognize how existing structures/institutions, and ways of doing things, have the consequence of freezing an unjust status quo. In order to achieve substantive equality prescribed under the Constitution, indirect discrimination, even sans discriminatory intent, must be prohibited.
84. Second, and as a related point, the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination can broadly be drawn on the basis of the former being predicated on intent, while the latter is based on effect (US, South Africa, Canada). Alternatively, it can be based on the fact that the former cannot be justified, while the latter can (UK). We are of the considered view that the intention effects distinction is a sound jurisprudential basis on which to distinguish direct from indirect discrimination.
This is for the reason that the most compelling feature of indirect discrimination, in our view, is the fact that it prohibits conduct, which though not intended to be discriminatory, has that effect. As the Canadian Supreme Court put it in Ontario HRC (supra) [Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears (1985) 2 SCR 53], requiring proof of intention to establish discrimination puts an "insuperable barrier in the way of a complainant seeking a remedy." It is this barrier that a robust conception of indirect discrimination can enable us to counteract."
51. This Court has spoken about the systemic discrimination Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 14 of 17 13:06:13 on account of gender at the workplace which encapsulates the patriarchal construction that permeates all aspects of a woman's being from the outset, including reproduction, sexuality and private choices, within an unjust structure. The OMs. which have been issued by DoPT from time to time recognized that in providing equality and equal opportunity to women in the workplace of the State, it becomes necessary for the Government to adopt policies through which it produces substantive equality of opportunity as distinct from a formal equality for women in the workplace. Women are subject to a patriarchal mindset that regards them as primary caregivers and homemakers and thus, they are burdened with an unequal share of family responsibilities. Measures to ensure substantive equality for women factor in not only those disadvantages which operate to restrict access to the workplace but equally those which continue to operate once a woman has gained access to the workplace. The impact of gender in producing unequal outcomes continues to operate beyond the point of access. The true aim of achieving substantive equality must be fulfilled by the State in recognizing the persistent patterns of discrimination against women once they are in the work place. The DoPT OMs. dated 3 April 1986, 23 August 2004, 8 July 2009 and 30 September 2009 recognised the impact of underlying social structures which bear upon the lives of women in the work place and produce disparate outcomes coupled with or even without an intent to discriminate. The provision which has been made for spousal posting is in that sense fundamentally grounded on the need to adopt special provisions for women which are recognized by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The manner in which a special provision should be adopted by the State is a policy choice which has to be exercised after balancing out constitutional values and the needs of the administration. But there can be no manner of doubt that the State, both in its role as a model employer as well as an institution which is subject to constitutional norms, must bear in mind the fundamental right to substantive equality when it crafts the policy even for its own employees.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 15 of 17 13:06:13..."
(emphasis supplied)
10.The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that women should be empowered and facilitated to enter into and to advance in their careers and employment. A woman should not have to sacrifice her family life in order to perform her official duties. Her right of cohabitation with and to maintain and enjoy even a modicum family life in the same State where her spouse also works as an officer in an All India Service ('AIS'), should be respected and granted.
11.The court is persuaded by the aforesaid arguments, especially in the context of the observations of the Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman (supra). Empowerment of women must be augmented at every stage so that: i) because of underlying social structures they do not become the subject of unintended discrimination; ii) the State, both as a model employer and as an institution, ensures that the fundamental right to equality at work places is achieved. By denying the petitioner her right to cohabit with her spouse, who serves as an officer in an All India Service in another State and depriving her from a family life, especially in the pressing condition of her child suffering from an acute medical condition is unfair and contrary to the settled law, as discussed hereinabove. Enabling her to resume her matrimonial life will only strengthen her both emotionally and psychologically in the discharge of her official duties optimally. It cannot be the policy of the State to deprive a relief in cases which are Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 16 of 17 13:06:13 covered under Government of India Policy framed in 2009, read with Rule 5(2) of IAS Cadre Rules, 1954 and the guidelines issued in the year 2004, as discussed in the impugned order.
12.Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the petition is allowed. The State of West Bengal is directed to relieve the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which she shall be deemed to have been relieved by virtue of this order.
13.The petition, along with pending applications, is disposed-off, in terms of the above.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J APRIL 7, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 14246/2021 Page 17 of 17 13:06:13