Transfer on "Spouse Ground" does not confer an indefeasible right

Jharkhand High Court Upholds Transfer Policy for All India Service Employees. Court Affirms No Absolute Right to Spousal Posting; Administrative Needs Prevail

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the transfer policy concerning All India Service employees, emphasizing that the administrative exigencies and equitable distribution of opportunities must take precedence over individual preferences for spousal postings. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Adwin Vinifred Tirkey, challenging the repatriation order and the policy limiting deputation on "Spouse Ground" to seven years.

The petitioner, who had been on deputation as a Senior Auditor in Ranchi for over two decades, claimed the policy was irrational and discriminatory. His deputation was initially granted to accommodate his wife, employed by the state government in Ranchi, and their minor daughter studying in the city. However, a new policy issued by the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) in January 2025 revised the guidelines, limiting such deputations to seven years, and provided a six-month window for repatriation preparations.

The High Court, led by Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision to dismiss Tirkey's petition. The court observed that transfer is an incident of service, and employees do not have a fundamental right to choose their posting locations. The court noted that while policies exist to facilitate spousal postings, they are subject to administrative feasibility and do not create an absolute right.

The judgment referenced key Supreme Court decisions, including SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India and Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, highlighting that the convenience of employees must be balanced against the needs of the administration. The court further clarified that the guidelines requiring spouses to be posted together are not mandatory but aspirational, contingent upon administrative needs.

The court also addressed the petitioner's contention regarding exemptions granted to certain Central Training Institutes from the revised policy, stating that the petitioner had not formally challenged this exemption and could not introduce new claims in a rejoinder.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no evidence of mala fides or statutory violations in the transfer order, and therefore, no grounds for judicial interference. The decision underscores the judiciary's limited role in administrative matters unless clear evidence of illegality or bad faith is demonstrated.

Bottom Line:

Transfer policy for All India Service employees regarding posting on "Spouse Ground" does not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting at the same station. Administrative exigencies and equitable distribution of opportunities must prevail.

Statutory provision(s): Service Law, Transfer policy, Deputation on "Spouse Ground", All India Service Transfer regulations, Guidelines of DoP&T, Administrative Tribunal Act, Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Adwin Vinifred Tirkey v. Union of India, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806929