Cannot keep spouses together for perpetuity: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the policy of keeping spouses employed by the government together at the same location cannot be a lifelong entitlement. The assertion came as a Division Bench of the high court stressed on the limitations on judicial interference in transfer matters before dismissing an appeal filed by a senior scientific officer seeking cancellation of her shifting order.

Advertisement

Delivering the judgment on an appeal filed against Haryana and other respondents, the Bench of Justices Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I Mehta observed, “The policy of keeping husband and wife together at a district cannot be for the entire life. It appears that the policy has been followed by the respondents as the appellant continued to work up to November 2024 at the same place, namely Karnal, where her husband is working, and it is now that she has been transferred after she was promoted as Senior Scientific Officer on August 21, 2024.”

In its detailed order, the Bench took note of the fact that the appellant, employed at a cooperative sugar mill and stationed in Karnal alongside her husband, was transferred to Panchkula following her promotion. The court made it clear that her grievance regarding family circumstances could not be a ground for interfering with the transfer.

“Having accepted her promotion, the appellant could not claim to continue at the same place. The grievance relating to family circumstances is a factor which is common with all employees who have a transferable job. The same, therefore, cannot be a reason to interfere with the transfer order,” the Bench observed.

Referring to the broader administrative necessity for senior officers to serve in various locations, the Bench asserted, “More so, all senior officers are required to be posted at various places during their tenure of higher post.”

Turning down the appeal, the Bench asserted the appellant could not contest the transfer after accepting the promotion. The court, at the same time, allowed the appellant to submit a fresh representation during future transfer cycles, providing a pathway for addressing her concerns through administrative procedures rather than judicial intervention.

“Her representation has, therefore, been rightly rejected by the respondents. The appellant, of course, can always move appropriate representation as and when the next transfers are made by the state government”, the Bench concluded.