http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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