Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Sarthak Dubey, Ms. Nikita Motwani, Advs v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT (ORAL)

08.10.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The writ petitioners in these petitions are Constables in the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:40:08 W.P.(C) 14385/2021 and another connected matter Railway Protection Force1. Sumit Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) 14385/2021 is posted at Malda in West Bengal, whereas Vipin Kumar, petitioner in WP(C) 11570/2022 is posted at Bhavnagar in Gujarat.

2. Pooja, the wife of Sumit Kumar, is working as a Teacher in a school run by the State of Uttar Pradesh at Bijnor, whereas Neha Kumari, the wife of Vipin Kumar, is working as an Assistant Teacher in Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh. They are both employees of the state of Uttar Pradesh.

3. The petitioners sought transfer to a place where their respective spouses were posted or to a proximate place of posting, invoking, for the said purpose, Clause 3(d) of circular dated 2 February 2010, issued by the Railway Board, which reads thus: The guidelines as framed by DOP&T in view of the 6th “3. CPC, have been examined in this ministry and it has been decided to adopt these with certain modifications. Accordingly provisions of guidelines issued under board’s letter dated 5.11.97 ibid have been modified as under: ***** WHERE ONE OF THE SPOUSE IS A RAILWAY d. SERVANT AND THE OTHER BELONGS TO A STATE SERVICE. The railway servant should be posted close to the station / place in the Railway / Division / PU in whose territorial jurisdiction the place/ station of posting of his/her spouse falls. If it is not possible, if a request from the railway servant to the controlling authority the spouse for his/ her posting at the place of posting of the railway servant is received the same may be forwarded to the concerned authority for sympathetic consideration.” Signature Not Verified 1 “RPF” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:40:08 W.P.(C) 14385/2021 and another connected matter

4. The petitioners’ representations were disposed of by the respondents by identical orders dated 22 October 2021 (in the case of Sumit Kumar) and 17 August 2020 (in the case of Vipin Kumar) along with similar requests of several other employees.

5. In each case, the ground for rejecting the representations, at that stage, was the same, and reads thus: “Their spouses are working as Teacher & other non-transferrable jobs. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a transferrable job involving dislocation. Since, we have very limited vacancies for Inter Railway transfer right now, these cases of spouse working in non-transferrable job may not be considered at present. However, they will be free to apply later.”

6. Mr. Amit Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents are in error in refusing the petitioners’ requests for transfer on the ground that their wives were in non-transferrable jobs and that, therefore, there would be no dislocation.

7. Having perused the orders dated 22 October 2021 and 17 August 2020, whereby the petitioners’ requests for transfer were rejected, we are not in agreement with Mr. Dubey that the reason for rejection was that their wives were in non-transferrable jobs. The fact that the petitioners’ spouses were in non-transferrable jobs is not in dispute. Clause 3(d) of the Railway Board Circular dated 2 February 2010 envisages posting of the railway employee close to his spouse, if it is possible to do so. If it is not possible to do so, the Clause envisages the employee approaching the employer of the spouse to transfer the spouse and, in that event, forwarding of the application by Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:40:08 W.P.(C) 14385/2021 and another connected matter the Railway Authorities, seeking a compassionate consideration.

8. This latter eventuality does not apply in the present case, as the wives of petitioners are admittedly posted in jobs which do not permit their transfer outside the state of Uttar Pradesh.

9. As such, the respondents’ responsibility was only to post the petitioners close to their respective wives, if it was possible to do so.

10. The orders under challenge dated 22 October 2021 and 17 August 2020 specifically state that there were limited vacancies for Inter-Railway transfer at that point of time. The petitioners were advised to apply later.

11. Instead of re-applying, the petitioners approached this Court and these petitions have, therefore, remained pending for four years before us.

12. Mr. Dubey submits that, in the interregnum, several juniors of the petitioners have been granted spousal transfer. That cannot, in our considered opinion, be a legitimate grievance as the petitioners, instead of re-applying, approached this Court and if, during the pendency of the petitions, juniors have been extended the benefit of spousal transfer, that is only because the petitioners chose to come to the Court rather than avail the opportunity of re-applying.

13. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC for the respondent in WP(C) Signature Not Verified 14385/2021 submits that, after the passing of the order dated 22 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:13.10.2025 18:40:08 W.P.(C) 14385/2021 and another connected matter October 2021, Sumit Kumar re-applied in 2023 but did not cite the posting of his spouse as the ground for seeking transfer. Transfer on spousal ground has again been sought by a representation submitted by him in May 2025 which is presently under consideration. She undertakes on instructions that a decision on the representation would be taken expeditiously.

14. We direct that a decision on the representation be positively taken within a period of 16 weeks from today and communicated to the petitioner.

15. We may, in this context, note the recent decision of the Supreme Court in SK Nausad Rahaman v UOI,2 in which the Supreme Court has observed that the State, while framing its policy, “has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy”. In the said decision, the Supreme Court also relied, with approval, on the following passage, from Bank of India v Jagjit Singh Mehta3 which, we feel, is also of relevance in the present case: There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as “5. 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 decision 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 Signature Not Verified