Delhi High Court
Poonam Dubey vs Union Of India And Ors. on 11 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 76 (2002) DLT 101
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Virender Jain, J.
1. Rule
It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got two
minor children, one is infant of four months. It is further contended that there is an
Office Memorandum dated 12.6.1997 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and
Training) (which is at page No. 41 of the paper book) inter alia, stating that spouse
should be posted at the same Station where the other spouse is working to enable
them to lead a normal family life and look after the welfare of the children especially
till the children are 10 years of age.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has not
availed the spouse posting in her 10 years service and is working at Hindon
(Ghaziabad) w.e.f. 4.5.1998, and now she is transferred at Silchar (Assam), husband
of the petitioner is residing in Delhi.
3. On the other hand Counsel for the respondents has contended that the Office
Memorandum dated 12.6.1997 is not mandatory and the respondents are governed
by their own policy which is placed at page Nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book.
Counsel for the respondent has further placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the
aforesaid letter which is to the following effect:
"There are likely to be a number of grounds, due to any one or more of which,
an officer may submit such an application. Some of these may be low medical
category, serious illness of family member, last tenure posting, marriage of
self or children education, house construction, financial reasons, husband's
place of posting etc. Any officer submitting such application must specify the
reason/reasons and indicate all relevant facts and attach documentary
evidence. It should be indicated as to why the objective for which applications
have been made, cannot partly or fully be met/achieved in case her request
is not acceded to, as also the time that would be required by her to achieve the
objective. All these and relevant factors be incorporated in the application, it
is not practicable to be more detailed and specific on the issue but the
concerned officer has to visualise the relevant facts and material in support of
her request".
4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the
Counsel for both the parties. The petitioner is working with Military Nursing
Service, nature of the service itself is that the petitioner can be posted anywhere as
the service is dedicated to the cause of keeping the men in uniform at all places in
perfect health by providing adequate nursing services. Therefore, this Court cannot
exercise any interfere in transfer and posting of the officers of the Military Nursing
Services until and unless any transfer or posting is mala fide or not in consonance with
the policy of the respondent itself. From the perusal of the policy which has been
placed by the Counsel for the respondent, said policy does not take into consideration
the situation which is in hand before me in this case. Four months old infant even
if allowed to be taken by the petitioner to any station would be a hindrance in
performance of the duty of the petitioner rather than any support. The welfare of the
child has to be taken into consideration in any policy. After perusal of the policy
(which is at page Nos. 88 and 89 of the paper book) formulated by the respondent,
I do not see any consideration given in that policy to a situation where the officer is
having infant of young age.
5. I direct the respondent to frame a policy in this regard so as to avoid any
harassment to such kind of cases where the officer is having very young children.
6. It is contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that the mother-in-law and
father-in-law are no more and the parents of the petitioner are sick and they cannot
look after the infant of four and a half months old.
7. In the circumstances, I direct that till the infant is one year four months old,
the petitioner be not transferred to a distant place.
8. Rule is made absolute.
9. The writ petition as well as application stand disposed of accordingly.
10. Rule made absolute. Writ Petition and Application disposed of.
