By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 09, 2017: THE issue before the Court is - Whether when there is proven administrative exigency and the fact that the Revenue Officer has his wife posted with the Railways with accommodation, there is any valid ground left for the High Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction to grant relief by staying his Transfer Order issued by CBDT. And the verdict goes against the appellant.

Facts of the case:

Appellant is a serving Revenue Officer. Mr. Virendra Ojha was working as DIT (Investigation) in Mumbai. A 'Transfer Order' was issued by which he was transferred to Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh as 'CIT'. Thereby, a representation for cancellation of the said 'Transfer Order' was submitted by the appellant, but, the same was rejected by the CBDT. Aggrieved by the said rejection, he further filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai for staying the operation and implementation of his 'Transfer Order' on three grounds. The first ground was since his daughter was studying in 10th standard and will be appearing for S.S.C. Board Examination in March, 2018. Secondly, he had not completed 14 years of continuous stay in Mumbai and thirdly, as per the interpretation of the Apex Court order on transfer policy of retention on the spouse ground, he concluded that since both the husband and wife were posted at one station, they cannot be shifted till their retirement.

However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue officer had already completed 13 years and 9 months stay at Mumbai, including the period on deputation. It was also found that the Revenue official was working in Mumbai since 1998 to 2002; from 2002 to 2005 in Thane; and from 2005 to 2017 again in Mumbai. Once it was held that there was no mala fides in the said 'Transfer Order', then, it followed that it was issued on account of administrative exigency and the said exigency was that the post of 'CIT' was lying vacant at Gorakhpur. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected all the three grounds.

High Court held that,

++ it is an admitted fact that in the previous year also, the Revenue was granted relaxation from transfer on the ground that his son was appearing for 12th standard examination. Apart from that, his wife, who is also serving as "Group-A" Officer in Railways, is very much available to take care of their school going daughter. She is also allotted accommodation by the Western Railway and, hence, she will not be required to vacate the premises on transfer of the Revenue to Gorakhpur. Therefore, we find that the Tribunal was justified in not accepting this ground;

++ the Supreme Court, while interpreting the transfer policy of retention on the spouse ground, has observed that, the said provision of posting husband and wife at the same station is discretionary and it is not such that in every case, simply because both the spouses happen to serve at one station, they cannot be shifted till their retirement. It is pertinent to note that since last about 18 to 19 years, if the Revenue Official and his wife are posted at one place and now for administrative reason, if the transfer of the Revenue official's is made by the Department, the effect of which 'Transfer Order', he has succeeded so far to avoid or to postpone, no further interim relief is necessary;

++ clause 7.1 of the "Guidelines, 2010" also provides that, "notwithstanding anything contained in these Guidelines, the Placement Committee may, if it considers necessary to do so in public interest and in furtherance of organizational objectives, transfer, retain, or, post any Officer to any station / region, or, a specific post". Clause 7.2 also provides that, "in between Two Annual General Transfer exercises, on administrative exigencies, the Placement Committee may shift any officer from one place / post to another";

++ in the instant case, the post of 'CIT' at Gorakhpur is lying vacant on account of the Revenue official seeking relaxation from the 'Transfer Policy' in the last year and this year also. Therefore, sufficiently administrative exigency being made out and Revenue official's wife being very much present and available to take care of their daughter's education, we do not find any reason to invoke our extra-ordinary jurisdiction, which is for fair-play and equity, to stay the operation of 'Transfer Order', which prayer is rightly rejected by the Department and the Tribunal. The Writ Petition, therefore, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2122-HC-MUM-SERVICE)