TrendingVideosIndiaWorldSports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhPatialaBathindaAmritsarLudhianaJalandharDelhiShaharnama
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentLifestyle
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Spousal proximity policy not a lifelong entitlement: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the policy of keeping spouses employed by the government at the same location is not a lifelong entitlement. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta...
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the policy of keeping spouses employed by the government at the same location is not a lifelong entitlement. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta emphasised the limitations on judicial interference in transfer matters, dismissing an appeal by a senior scientific officer seeking the cancellation of her transfer order.

Court’s observation

Advertisement

- Family circumstances are common in transferable jobs and do not warrant judicial intervention

- Senior officers must serve in varied locations during their tenure

- Promotion acceptance invalidates claims to remain in the same posting

Advertisement

- Employees can address concerns via administrative representation during future transfer cycles

“The policy of keeping husband and wife together at a district cannot be for the entire life,” the Bench observed. It noted that the appellant had been posted in Karnal with her husband until November 2024. However, her transfer to Panchkula followed her promotion to Senior Scientific Officer in August 2024.

The court ruled that accepting a promotion inherently entails readiness to serve in different locations. “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 stated.

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

The appellant had contended that her family circumstances warranted continued posting in Karnal, where her husband is stationed. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that family challenges are not exceptional grounds for contesting transfer orders in transferable jobs.

While dismissing the appeal, the Bench acknowledged the possibility of administrative recourse. “The appellant, of course, can always move appropriate representation as and when the next transfers are made by the state government,” the court said. It upheld the state’s rejection of her representation, stating that her concerns could be addressed in future transfer cycles through administrative procedures rather than judicial intervention.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement