Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
120/2012 on 16 May, 2012
Author: Indira Banerjee
Bench: Indira Banerjee
1
6.5.12
W. P. C. T. No. 120 of 2012
Sardear Amjad Ali,
Mr. Kalyan Sarkar,
Mr. Falguni Bhattacharya
.. For the Petitioner.
Ms. Gopa Roy
.. For the Respondents.
In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged an order dated 30th April, 2012 in O. A. No. 376 of 2012 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench has refused the prayer of the petitioner for interim order restraining the respondents from giving effect to an order of transfer dated 11th April, 2012 impugned in the said application before the learned Tribunal whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Assistant Manager, MMS Howrah Depot to the post of Assistant Manager, MMS Siliguri Depot and one Gautam Rudra, who had been the Assistant Manager, MMS Siliguri Depot has been transferred to the post of Assistant Manager, MMS Howrah Depot, that is, the post held by the petitioner.
The impugned order was challenged on the ground that the same was in violation of the mandatory guidelines contained in the office memorandum dated 30th September, 2009 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training.
On a perusal of the office memorandum, it appears that the same has been issued in view of the utmost importance attached to the enhancement of women's status in all walks of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life as also to ensure the education and welfare of children. Guidelines had been issued for posting husband and wife, who were both government servants, at the same station. The provisions of Office Memorandum dated 12th June, 1997 was amended and provided, inter alia, as follows :
"The husband & wife, is working in the same Department and if the required level of post is available, should invariably be posted together in order to enable them to lead a normal family life and look after the welfare of their children especially till the children attain 18 years of age. This will not apply on appointment under the Central Staffing Scheme. Where only wife is a Govt. servant, the above concessions would be applicable to the Govt. servant."
It is submitted that as the petitioner and his wife are working in the same department, they were posted in Kolkata. It is also contended that the petitioner has an old and ailing father and an eleven year old son to look after.
The petitioner's wife also made a representation to the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle praying that the impugned order of transfer be cancelled on the following grounds :
2(i) Her father-in-law, i.e., the father of the petitioner was not well and required constant attention at home,
(ii) The petitioner's only son was eleven years of age. The petitioner's wife felt that he could not be moved elsewhere till he attained adulthood, and
(iii) The petitioner's wife was also working in the mail motor service and the petitioner being the husband should therefore be retained in Kolkata.
By a long and reasoned letter dated 4th May, 2012 the representation of the petitioner dated 11th April, 2012 has been rejected, after giving the petitioner a hearing. This is recorded in the second paragraph of the letter dated 4th May, 2012.
The Chief Post Master General very rightly observed that the ground of old and aged parent who required attention and the ground of small school children was a common ground applicable to most, if not all, employees.
However, the ground of requirement to post the husband and the wife in the same station was duly accepted and the petitioner's wife was assured that she would also be transferred to Siliguri on deputation and was directed to submit her application if she was willing to be transferred to Siliguri.
Transfer is an incidence of service. Orders of transfer are not ordinarily to be interfered with by Courts and Tribunals. In this case, it is a matter of record that the authorities are agreeable to post the petitioner and his wife to the same station. No case of mala fide has been made out. Moreover, the matter is pending before the learned Tribunal. The interference of this court is not at all warranted.
The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
(Indira Banerjee, J.) (Anindita Roy Saraswati, J.) 3