Delhi High Court
State Of West Bengal vs Gandharva Rathore & Ors. on 28 May, 2021
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4048/2021
STATE OF WEST BENGAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv.
versus
GANDHARVA RATHORE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.K.Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Ruchira Gupta, Ms.Mona Sinha,
Mr.Parmatma Singh, Mr.Madhur Jain,
Advs. for R-1.
% Date of Decision: 28th May, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The State of West Bengal impugns the order dat ed 04 th December,
2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New
Delhi, allowing OA No.3579/2019 preferred by the respondent no.1
impugning non-grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for ch ange of h er
cadre in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) from West-Bengal to
Himachal Pradesh, to an officer of which cadre the respondent no.1 has been
married. By way of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed t o
issue NOC/consent for cadre transfer of the respondent No.1 from the St ate
of West Bengal to Himachal Pradesh.
3. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had
prayed for some time to obtain instructions. Though it was made clear t hat
no adjournment would be granted today, yet learned counsel for the
petitioner states that due to cyclone 'Yaas', it has not been possible to obt ain
instructions.
4. However, the request for adjournment is opposed by learn ed sen ior
counsel for the respondent No.1 on the ground that the cyclone has not
affected the State Secretariat situated at Kolkata and even after the last dat e
of hearing, some officials have been transferred.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the fact that sufficient
opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to obtain instructions, t he
prayer for adjournment is declined and the matter is taken up for hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is an extreme
shortage of officers as a number of officers have sou ght t ransfer from t he
West Bengal cadre on account of their marriage to officers belonging to
other State cadres.
7. However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that the issue raised by
the petitioner in the present case is no longer res integra and the same stands
decided against the petitioner by way of the following three Division Ben ch
judgments:-
(1) Bhavna Gupta vs. The Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
No.13444/2019. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"11. Reading of the above-cited Government Policy leaves no room for
doubt that the same would apply to the petitioner. The petitioner waited
patiently for two years after making her first representation to the State
of West Bengal; and only after having received no response did she
approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted six weeks time to the State
of West Bengal to consider the petitioner's representation; however no
response has yet been received to that representation.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Counsel for the State of West Bengal now submits that a 'No -
Objection' cannot be granted in view of certain proceedings pending
before the Calcutta High Court. With the highest regard for the Calcutta
High Court and with full deference to the comity of courts, we have
queried counsel for the State of West Bengal to point-out any order
where the Calcutta High Court has restrained the transfer of the
petitioner; or by which the petitioner has been ordered to remain present
in court; or any order to even show that the petitioner's presence is
necessary in West Bengal for the proceedings pending in court. No such
order or direction or requirement has been brought to our notice.
xxx xxx xxx
16. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition directing that the
petitioner be relieved within two weeks from the date of receipt of this
order."
(2) Ms.Loganayagi Divya V. vs. Union of India & Ors., WP(C)
No.3927/2020. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"4. In our view, there can be absolutely no justification for the State of
West Bengal not relieving the petitioner to enable her to join the IPS
Cadre in the State of Odisha. This shows complete apathy on the part of
the State of West Bengal - which cannot be countenanced. We are left
with no alternative, but to issue directions to enable the petitioner to join
her post in the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha.
5. Accordingly, we declare that the petitioner stands forthwith
relieved from her post in the IPS Cadre of the State of West Bengal. No
further orders would be required to be passed by the State of West
Bengal in this regard. We direct the State of Odisha to treat this order as
a relieving order of the petitioner to enable her to join her post in the IPS
Cadre in the State of Odisha."
(3) The State of West Bengal vs. Raj Karan Nayyar & Anr.,
WP(C) No.11966/2018. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Considering the overall circumstance, we grant time to the
petitioner up to 28.02.2019 to relieve the respondent No.1 so that he can
join his services with the State of U.P. It is made clear that no further
extension shall be sought or granted and, in case, no express order is
passed relieving the respondent No.1 from his services by the State of
West Bengal, he shall be deemed to have been relieved on 28.02.2019
and it shall be open to him to join the services with the State of U.P."
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the present writ
petition is dismissed and the State of West Bengal is directed to relieve t he
respondent no.1 within eight weeks. In the event, the respondent no.1 is n ot
relieved within the aforesaid stipulated period, she shall be deemed t o h ave
been relieved by virtue of the order of this Court.
9. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be
also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MAY 28, 2021
RN
