Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Union Of India And Ors on 26 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010012262025
2026:GAU-AS:4684
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/300/2025
SMTI CHANDRAWATI SRIVASTAV
DAUGHTER OF LATE S. S. LAL SHRIVASTAVA AND WIFE OF UDAI PRATAP
SINGH, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SARAYA MOTALIKAY, HEMAY, MAU,
UTTAR PRADESH- 275301 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O 99 APO, EASTERN
BASE WORKSHOP (GREF), B.P. TINALI, TEZPUR, ASSAM, PIN 784151
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
BORDER ROAD WING, 4TH FLOOR B WING, SENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-
110011.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD
DELHI CANTT.
NEW DELHI- 110010.
3:tTHE OFFICER IN CHARGE
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE GREF
DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESWAR ROAD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PINE
Page No.# 2/14
MAHARASHTRA
4:MAJOR
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE GREF
DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESWAR ROAD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PINE
MAHARASHTRA
5:SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER STAFF OFFICER
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE GREF
DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESWAR ROAD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PINE
MAHARASHTRA
6:LIEUTENANT COLONEL
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE GREF
DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESWAR ROAD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PINE
MAHARASHTRA
7:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS (EAST)
HQ
ADDL DGBR EAST (GREF)
JALUKBARI
NEAR LANKESHWAR TEMPLE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781013
8:THE COMMANDANT
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (EBW) GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER
FORCE GREF
Page No.# 3/14
TEZPUR-784151
C/O-99 APO
9:ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
FOR ADDL DGBR EAST (GREF)
JALUKBARI
NEAR LANKESHWAR TEMPLE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : KHALID MOHAMMED, MD F FARIDI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U K GOSWAMI (C.G.C),
Linked Case : WP(C)/6914/2024
UDAI PRATAP SINGH AND ANR
S/O- AMAR NATH SINGH
PERMANENT R/O- TEHSIL KHAJANI
VILLAGE- HARIHAR PURWA
DIST- GORAKHPUR
UTTAR PRADESH-273212
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O 99 APO
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (GREF)B. P TINIALI
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784151
2: CHANDRAWATI AHRIVASTAV
D/O- LATE SS LAL SHRIVASTAVA
W/O- UDAI PRATAP SINGH
PERMANENT R/O- SARAYA
MAU
UTTAR PRADESH-273212
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O 99 APO
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (GREF)B. P TINIALI
Page No.# 4/14
TEZPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784151
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (BR)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
GOVT. OF INDIA
(BRDB))
ROOM NO. 418
B WING
4TH FLOOR
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI- 110011.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION
SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD
DELHI CANTT.
NEW DELHI- 110010.
3:THE OFFICER IN CHARGE
(OIC)
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE
(GREF) DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESHWAR RD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PUNE MAHARASHTRA-15
4:MAJOR
RECORD OFFICE
(OIC)
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE
(GREF) DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESHWAR RD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PUNE MAHARASHTRA-15
5:SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Page No.# 5/14
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE
(GREF) DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESHWAR RD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PUNE MAHARASHTRA-15
6:LIEUTENANT COLONEL
RECORD OFFICE GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE
(GREF) DIGHT CAMP
BUS STOP
MAHASKIBASTI
ST DNYANESHWAR RD
KUSMADE COLONY
KALAS
PUNE MAHARASHTRA-15
7:ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS (EAST)
HQ
ADDL
DGBR
EAST (GREF)
JALUKBARI
NEAR LANKESWAR TEMPLE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781013
8:THE COMMANDANT
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (EBW)
GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE (GREF)
TEZPUR
PIN-784151
C/O-99 APO
9:ASSTT. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
FOR ADDL DGBR (EAST)
GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEER FORCE
JALUKBARI
NEAR LANKESWAR TEMPLE
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781013
------------
Advocate for : MD F FARIDI
Page No.# 6/14
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
Advocate for the Petitioners : Md. F. Faridi
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Choudhury,Mr. U. K. Goswami (CGC)
Date on which judgment is reserved : NIL
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment :
Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced : Full judgment
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. F. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury as well as Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned counsels for all the respondents.
2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for spouse posting at one particular post. The petitioners have also challenged the posting and transfer order dated 17.08.2024 by which petitioner no.1 transferred to Jammu Tawi and order dated 28.08.2024 by which petitioner no.2 was transferred to Silapathar.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them were working under the Page No.# 7/14 General Reserve Engineer Force, petitioner no.1 as Operator Excavating Machine (OEM) and petitioner no.2 was working as MSW PNR in the Eastern Base Workshop (EBW), General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF), Tezpur.
4. Both the petitioners were working in the organization since 2018 and 2003 respectively under the said graft. The petitioners states that while they were working in their respective post at Tezpur, the respondent no.4 issued an order dated 17.08.2024 for the posting and transfer of General Reserve Engineer Force personnel, by which as stated above the petitioner no.1 was transferred to Jammu Tawi and petitioner no.2 was transferred to Silapathar.
5. The petitioners states that they have a minor child aged about 4 years and being aggrieved by the posting the petitioner no.2 submitted a representation on 03.08.2024 stating inter alia that both the petitioners are employed in the same department and are parents to a 3 years old child and that posting at different places would create hardships in raising their child. Accordingly, petitioner no.2 requested the respondent authorities to consider granting spouse posting in the same unit at a particular place. The petitioner no.2 had also apprised the authorities of an ongoing legal dispute with her brother regarding family property which according to her has caused immense hardship and that posting at a different station from her husband would exaggerate her problems which would have an effect upon her ability to discharge her duties.
6. The said representation was forwarded by the Administrative Officer, Estate and Finance Officer, on behalf of Officiating Commandant. However respondent authorities thorough a letter dated 02.09.2024, replied that the post of OEM which petitioner no.1 was holding was not present in some of the selected choice stations. It be stated here that the petitioner no 2 while giving her representation had enumerated 5 nos. of choice stations as per the ROI.
Page No.# 8/14 The authorities apprised her that she may file another representation.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner no.2 submitted a fresh representation on 31.08.2025 to the respondent authorities by referring to her earlier representation and she requested for spouse posting again. She has again reiterated the reasons of her child to be raised and her family disputes. The said representation was again forwarded by the authorities concerned. But the respondent authorities informed that the posting orders were issued prior to the receipt of the representation by petitioner no.2. It was intimated that the petitioner has to submit representation 6months before the completion of the tenure as per the alleged guidelines and as such the representation given by the petitioner was not considered.
8. Thereafter, petitioner no.2 had given yet another representation on 28.10.2024 stating inter alia that she was not aware of the 6 months advance application and that she had given representation beforehand which was rejected on one ground or the other. She therefore requested the respondent authorities either to transfer her to a place near her husband's posting or to transfer her husband to a station near her posting.
9. This representation was also rejected by the respondent authorities saying that indication of choice of stations will not confer a right for posting and that posting will be determined on the basis of the availability of the vacancies. The petitioner no.2 was directed to proceed to the new place of posting.
10. Mr. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the representation on the grounds that giving choice posting is not a matter of right or representation to be given 6 months before the tenure gets over or none availability of vacancies are not tenable in the facts and eyes of law. He Page No.# 9/14 submits that by posting order dated 17.08.2024, petitioner no.1 was transferred from Tezpur to Jammu Tawi and by order dated 28.08.2024, petitioner no.2, was transferred from Tezpur to Silapathar. He submitted that various representations were given to the respondent authorities requesting spouse posting and the same were rejected on the grounds as stated above.
11. He placed reliance on the office memorandum dated 30.08.2009, wherein it is stated that when spouses worked in the same department and if post are available they may be mandatorily be posted at the same station. He has also relied upon the office memorandum dated 24.11.2022, which states, inter alia, that for enhancing the status of women in all walks of life and in order to enable them to lead a normal family life, as well as to ensure the education and welfare of children, the posting of husband and wife who are in Government service should be at the same station. The said instructions were directed to be followed by all departments in letter and spirit. It was further reiterated in the office memorandum that spouses working in the same department should mandatorily be posted at the same station, subject, of course, to the rider that the posts are available.
12. The said memorandum also provides that the spouse posting should be at one place till the children attained 18 years of age. He also has relied on chapter-24 of the Record Office Instructions (ROI) wherein, it is provided that female employees would be asked 5 choice stations and efforts will be made to post them to one of the choice stations.
13. Furthermore, it is provided that efforts will also be made to the best extent possible, to post husband and wife in the same station/unit/formation if both the husband and wife are GREF employees. However subject to requirement and constraints of the Organization. He as such submits that in Page No.# 10/14 consonance with the said instructions the petitioner no.2 had given 5 stations of her choice but the respondent authorities have not given any heed by saying that the post of OEM is not available in few of the stations.
14. Learned counsel has also relied on the instructions which provides that after the posting order within 45 days representation can be made and he submits that nowhere in the instructions or in the memorandum the requirement of giving representation 6 months prior to the expiration of the tenure is provided for to which the learned counsel for the respondent also could not placed the said requirements.
15. The learned counsel also submits that as per amendment to the office memorandum dated 24.11.2022, it is provides that if the vacancy is not available for both the husband and wife to be accommodated in the same station the wife or the husband should be accommodated in the nearby station. As such he submits that the petitioner no. 1 and 2 be accommodated at one station and if it is not possible then at least the husband or the wife may be accommodated in the nearby area and he also submits that the posting can be done anywhere in the Country but they should be posted together or the nearby areas as stated above.
16. Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents by relying on the affidavit filed by him submits that the petitioner no.1 and 2 were posted in Tezpur before they were transferred vide orders dated 17.08.2024 as well as 28.08.2024 and that he submits that back to back spouse posting is not permissible under the rules. He submitted that the petitioner no.2 had served more than 14.75 years in western sector and only 6.67 years in Eastern Sector and that she served in most attractive area/soft area since her appointment in July 2003 whereas, petitioner no.1 had only 6.5 years of total service in the soft Page No.# 11/14 area since August 2021 and that the posting orders has been issued by balancing their service tenure. He relies on the amendment to the office memorandum dated 24.11.2022, in which it is stated that husband and wife being GREF employees would be posted in the same station either in soft area/most attractive area or Hard Area/ extremely Hostile Area/ High Hard Area/ High Altitude Area as per service provide and that choice of posting should be considered only on grounds of higher education of children.
17. It is further provided that if both the husband and wife are due for high altitude area they may be considered for high altitude area units of course on willingness of the couple. It also provides that when the husband is due for High Altitude Area the wife may be considered to any station near the high altitude area and that no back to back spouse posting should be applicable. He has also pointed out that couples will be liable to serve separately in case of exigencies of service and no one can claim spouse posting as a right.
18. He has also submitted that specific period needs to be served by the employees working in the GREF in respect of various areas that is HAA/HHA/HA/EHA/SA. Accordingly, he submits that the posting orders to both the petitioners are not illegal and the petitioners should go and join the respective post at the respective places.
19. To substantiate his arguments Mr. S. P. Choudhury, relies on two judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
(i) Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 wherein it has been held that "order of transfer is an incident of Govt. service and that spouse posting is although provided for but the same does not confer upon the employee any legal enforceable right".
(ii) State of UP Vs. Siya Ram & Anr. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 wherein, the Apex Court had held that "the particular employee cannot claim to Page No.# 12/14 stay at one particular place and the transfer is a condition of service necessary in public interest and in the public Administration and unless the same is done with some malafide exercise it cannot be interfered with".
20. I have heard the counsels and I have gone through the records. It is noticed that the spouse posting is provided for under the various memorandum and instructions provided for by the Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pension department of personal and training establishment and it has been provided that the husband and wife should be posted as far as possible at the same station so that there is enhancement of women status as well as the children should get proper education and upbringing.
21. The said policy has been followed in all the central services as well as directed to be followed in all the departments. It is noticed that although a spouse posting is not a matter of right but is has been provided for in various memorandum and in the instructions that as far as possible the husband and wife should be stationed at one particular place especially due to the fact that the children should have a proper upbringing.
22. Petitioner no.2 had made representation a number of times the first being on 03.08.2024 that is before the transfer and posting of the petitioners intimating the authorities that she has a 3 year old child and that she would face problems in taking care of the child and that she has family problems too and prayed by way of the said representation that her husband may be posted at the same station as she was and she had given 5 places of posting that is Tezpur, Chandigarh, Gangtok, Udhampur and Pathankot.
23. The said representation however was rejected on the ground that the post of OEM, which her husband is holding is not authorized in some of the selected choice stations, which makes it clear that in few of the choice stations the OEM Page No.# 13/14 post is available. It is not in respect of all the 5 stations but in few of them it is available. As such, the rejection order is not proper. Thereafter, she made another application with the same prayer but the said representation was again rejected on the ground that the application for spouse posting has to be submitted 6 months before the completion of tenure.
24. The said reason for rejection is untenable inasmuch as it is nowhere provided in the memorandum or in the instructions that the said requirement is needed. What is provided in the instructions is that within 45 days from the date of posting representations can be made. Thereafter, the petitioner has again requested for spouse posting and the same was rejected on the ground that giving of choice stations will not confer any right for posting. The said ground is also not tenable since there is no dispute with that fact that it is not anybody's right but it is provided that as far as possible they should be posted together for reasons mentioned above. Therefore, it is seen that the rejection of the representations are not tenable in the eyes of law or in the facts of the case.
25. It is also stated by the petitioners counsel that posts are available in Jammu Tawi and employees are being transferred there. However, the same is rejected in the case of the petitioners. In view of what has been stated above this Court directs the respondent authorities to properly consider the representation of the petitioner who would file the same before the authorities. The authorities should consider the memorandum and the instructions that when husband and wife, are GREF employees both of them should be posted in the same station and if the husband is posted in hard areas or likewise the wife that is petitioner no.2 should be posted near the same place specially because of the underlined basic requirement given in the memorandum that is to enhance the women's participation in employment as well as for taking care of Page No.# 14/14 the children.
26. The petitioners are directed to submit the representation within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of the order and the respondent authorities shall dispose of the said representation within a period of 2 (two) weeks thereafter. Furthermore, the transfer and posting orders dated 17.08.2024 qua the petitioner no.1 and order dated 28.08.2024 qua the petitioner no.2 are hereby interfered with.
27. In view of the fact that the petitioners have a 4 year old child this Court directs that the petitioners would make the representation while staying in Tezpur and the same may be considered as an exceptional case and thereafter, orders of posting and transfer be issued.
28. This judgment and order is passed both in respect of WP(C) No. 300/2025 and WP(C) No. 6914/2024.
29. Petition is disposed of and stay order stands vacated.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant