Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. Having heard the parties, the Tribunal allowed Respondent 1's OA. It relied, for the said purpose, on the judgment of the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman v UOI4, as well as the judgments of this Court in Bhavna Gupta v UOI5, Loganayagi Divya V. v UOI6, State of West Bengal v Raj Karan Nayyar7, Govt. of West Bengal v Arsh Verma8, Renu Sogan v UOI9 and Amritpal Kaur v UOI10.

10. Aggrieved thereby, the State of West Bengal has moved this Court by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. Arsh Verma 14.1 The facts of this case mirror those of the present, to the extent that they may be directly imported, merely changing the names of the dramatis personae. In this case, too, the reluctant respondent, was the Government of West Bengal. Arsh Verma16, like the present respondent, was an IPS officer of the West Bengal cadre, who married an IPS officer of the Haryana cadre and, on that ground, sought ICT to Haryana. As in this case, the Government of Haryana had no objection to conceding Arsh's request, but the Government of West Bengal demurred. Arsh approached the Tribunal, which disposed of his OA with a direction to the Government of West Bengal to reconsider Arsh's request. The Government of West Bengal challenged the decision before this Court.

14.2 As in the present case, the Government of West Bengal cited acute shortage of IPS officers in West Bengal as the justification not to allow Arsh's request for ICT.

16 "Arsh" hereinafter W.P.(C) 1901/2025 14.3 Relying, inter alia, on Sk. Nausad Rahaman, the Division Bench of this Court in Arsh observed and held thus, while dismissing the writ petition, further directing the West Bengal Government to relieve Arsh: