PETITIONER:
BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JAGJIT SINGH MEHTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1991
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
BENCH:
VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 519 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 492
1992 SCC (1) 306 JT 1991 (4) 460
1991 SCALE (2)1108
ACT:
Service Law:
Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979:
Regulation 47, Notice dated 28.3.1988--Transfer--Bank
Officer--Whether can claim transfer to a particular place on
the ground of spouse's employment.
Government of India Memorandum dated 3.2.1986, Para
4(vi): Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Under-
takings) Act, 1970:
Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979--All
India Service-Posting of husband and wife at one
station--Guidelines--Nature
of
HEADNOTE:
Regulation 47 of the Bank of India (Officers') Service
Regulations, 1979 provided that every officer was liable for
transfer to any office or branch of the Bank of India or to
any place in India.
The respondent was posted as a clerk in the appellant
Bank at Chandigarh. At the time of his promotion to the
Junior Management Grade Scale-1, he gave an undertaking for
posting anywhere in India, and was consequently posted as
Branch Officer in the State of Bihar. Thereafter, he filed a
writ petition in the High Court claiming his transfer to
Chandigarh Zone on the ground of his wife being employed at
Chandigarh. The writ petition was allowed. The Bank filed
appeal by special leave to this Court.
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that para 4
(vi) of Memorandum dated 3.4.1986 of the Government of India
contained guidelines for posting of husband and wife at one
station which were meant to be followed also by all the
Public Sector Undertakings, and, according to the provisions
of the Banking Compa-
493
nies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and
the Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 made
thereunder, the bank was bound to follow the guidelines and
directions issued by the Central Government.
Allowing the appeal of the Bank, this Court,
HELD: 1. Although the guidelines require the two
spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable the
desirability of such a course being obvious-yet that does
not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if
the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible;
nor does it mean that their place of posting should invaria-
bly be one of their choice even though their preference may
be taken into account while making the decision in accord-
ance with the administrative needs. The only thing required
is that the departmental authorities should consider the
feasibility of a suitable posting along with the exigencies
of administration and enable the two spouses to live togeth-
er at one station if it is possible without any detriment to
the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.
[pp 495 E; 496 BC]
2. After accepting a promotion or any appointment in an
All india Service, subordinating the need of the couple
living together at one station, they cannot as of right
claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of the serv-
ice and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground
that the spouses thereby would be posted at different
places. While choosing the career and a particular service
the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared
to face such a hardship particularly when they belong to
different services. They have to make their choice at the
threshhold between career prospects and family life. [pp 495
F-H; 496 A]
3.1 In the instant case, the respondent voluntarily gave
an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any
place in India and on that basis got promotion and thereaf-
ter sought to be relieved of that necessary incident of an
All India Service on the ground that his wife had to remain
at Chandigarh. [p. 496 AB]
3.2 In the face of Regulation 47 of the Bank of India
(Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 according to which
every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch
of the Bank of India or to any place in India and the clear
provision for such transfer in the policy read with the
notice dated March 28, 1988, the High Court's order cannot
be sustained. [p. 495 BC]
494
The High Court was in error in overlooking all the
relevant aspect as well as the absence of any legal right in
the respondent to claim the relief which it granted as a
matter of course. [p. 496 CD]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4541 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.1991 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2415 of 1991.
Dr. Anand Prakash, Mrs. Veena Birbal and Raj Birbal for
the Appellants.
D.R. Sehgal, S.K. Bagga and Mrs. S.K. Bagga for the Respond-
ents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VERMA, J. The respondent, Jagjit Singh Mehta, is em-
ployed at present in the Bank of India as an officer in
Junior Management Grade Scale-1 and posted in a Branch
Office of the Bank in District Giridih in the State of
Bihar. The respondent was earlier employed in the clerical
cadre of the Bank and was posted at Chandigarh. According to
the policy contained in Annexure-B read with notice dated
March 28, 1988 (Annexure-C), on promotion from the clerical
cadre to the Officers’ Grade, the respondent had to indicate
his preparedness for posting anywhere in India according to
the availability of vacancies. The respondent readily indi-
cated his preparedness to be posted anywhere in India by
Annexure-D dated April 19, 1988 when the respondent was
posted as a Clerk at Chandigarh prior to his promotion as an
Officer.
After getting the promotion as an officer and being
posted in Bihar on the above basis, the petitioner filed
Civil Writ Petition No. 2415 of 1991 in the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana for a direction to the Bank to transfer
him from the Bihar Zone to the Chandigarh Zone on the ground
that his wife is employed as a Senior Accountant at Chandi-
garh. The writ petition has been allowed by a Division Bench
(M.R Agnihotri & D.S.Mehra, JJ,) of the High Court by a
cryptic order dated 6.8.1991 which reads as under :-
“After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, we allow this petition and direct the
respondents by issuing a writ of mandamus
commanding the Bank of India to transfer the
peti-
495
tioner and post him somewhere near Chandigarh
as his wife is posted as a Clerk in the office
of the Advocate General, Punjab, Chandigarh.
This shall be done within a period of two
months. No costs.”
The petitioner-Bank of India is aggrieved by the above
order of the High Court. Special leave is granted.
In the face of Regulation 47 of the Bank of India
(Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 according to which
every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch
of the Bank of India or to any place in India and the clear
provision for such a transfer in the policy (Annexure-B)
read with notice dated March 28, 1988 (Annexure-C), it is
difficult to sustain the High Court’s order. However,
learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on para 4
(vi) of a Memorandum dated April 3, 1986 (AnnexureH) of the
Government of India containing guidelines for posting of
husband and wife at one station which are meant to be fol-
lowed also by all the Public Sector Undertakings. Learned
counsel urged that according to the statutory provisions
contained in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer
of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and the Bank of India (Officers’)
Service Regulations, 1979 made thereunder, the Bank is bound
to follow the guidelines and directions issued by the Cen-
tral Government in this behalf.
There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as
practicable the husband and wife who are both employed
should be posted at the same station even if their employers
be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious.
However, this does not mean that their place of posting
should invariably be one of their choice, even though their
preference may be taken into account while making the deci-
sion in accordance with the administrative needs. In the
case of All-India Services, the hardship resulting from the
two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at
times particularly when they belong to different services
and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the
other’s posting. While choosing the career and a particular
service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be
prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs
and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one
place without sacrifice of the requirements of the adminis-
tration and needs of other employees. In such a case the
couple have to make their choice at the threshold between
career prospects and family life. After giving preference to
the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any
appointment in an All-India Service with the incident of
transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of
the couple living together at one
496
station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the
ordinary incidents of All-India Service and avoid transfer
to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby
would be posted at different places. In addition, in the
present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking
that he was. prepared to be posted at any place in India and
on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the
Officers’ grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of
that necessary incident of All-India Service on the ground
that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the
guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place
as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse
to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental
authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing
required is that the departmental authorities should consid-
er this aspect along with the exigencies of administration
and enable the two spouses to live together at one station
if it is possible without any detriment to the administra-
tive needs and the claim of other employees.
The High Court was in error in overlooking all the
relevant aspects as well as the absence of any legal fight
in the respondent to claim the relief which the High Court
has granted as a matter of course. The High Court’s order
must, therefore, be set aside.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order
of the High Court is set aside and the respondent’s writ
petition is dismissed. No costs.
k.P. Appeal
allowed.
497