BANK OF INDIAversusJAGJIT SINGH MEHTA

A                            BANK OF INDIA

                                      v.
                          JAGJIT SINGH MEHTA

                           NOVEMBER 22, 1991
B
                 [LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.S. VERMA
                       AND S.C. AGRA WAL, JJ.]

         Service Law:

G        Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979:

          Regulation 47, Notice dated 28.3.1981$-Transfer-Bank
    Officer-Whether can claim transfer to a particular place on the ground
    of spouse's employment.

D       Government ofIndia Memorandum dated 3.2.1986, Para 4(vi): Banking
    Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970:

         Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations. 1979-A/l India
    Service--Posting of husband and wife at one station-Guidelines-Nature
    of
E
          Regulation 47 of the Bank of India (Officers') Service Regula-
    tions, 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 'Yas posted as a clerk in the appellant Bank at
F   Chandigarh. At the time of his promotion to the Junior Manage-
    ment 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
G   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 con-
    tained guidelines for posting of husband and wife at one station
    which were meant to be followed also by all the Public Sector Un-
H   dertakings, and, according to the provisions of the Banking Compa-

                                     492
                   BANK OF INDIA v.     J.S. MEHTA                 493

nies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and the          A
Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 made thereun-
der, the bank was bound to follow the guidelines and directions
issued by the Central Government.

     Allowing the appeal of the Bank, this Court,

      ilELD : 1. Although the guidelines require the two spouses B
to be posted at one place as far as practicable--tbe 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 invariably be one of their choice even though their prefer-
ence may be taken into account while making the decision in ac-
                                                                          c
cordance 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 en-
able the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible
without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of D
other employees. [pp 495 E; 496 BC)
       2. After accepting a promotion or any appointment in an All
India Service, subordinating the Qeed of the couple living together
at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the
ordinary incidents of the service and avoid transfer to a different
plac.:e on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at         E
different places. While choosing the career and a particular service
the coupie 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 thresbhold between .career
prospects and family life. [pp 495 F-H; 496. A.]
                                                                          F
     3.1 In the instant case, the respondent voluntarily gave an un-
dertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India
and on that basis got promotion and therea~ter sought to be relieved
of that nec.:essary incident of an All India Service on the ground that
his wife had to remain at Chandigarh. [p. 496 AB]
                                                                          G
      3.2 In the face of Regulation 47 of the Bank of India (Offic-
ers') Service Regulations, 1979 according to which every offker 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 CouJt's
order cannot be sustained. [p. 495 BC]                                    H
    494                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A        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]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4541 of
    1991.
B
         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.8.1991 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 2415of1991.

          Dr. Anand Prakash, Mrs. Veena Birbal and Raj Birbal for the Ap-
    pellants.
c
            D.R. Sehgal, S.K. Bagga and ~s. S.K Bagga for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D         VERMA, J. The respondent, Jagjit Singh Mehta, is employed at present
    in the Bank of India as an officer in Junior Management Grade Scale- I
    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 March 28, 1988 (Annexure-C), on
E   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 indicated his pre-
    paredness 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.
F
           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 Pupjab 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 Chandigarh. The writ
G   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 Ias
    under:-
                                                                                  .......
                 "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, w~ allow
                 this petition and direct the respondents by issuing a writ of
H                mandamus commanding the Bank of India to transfer the peti- ·
               BANK OF INDIA v.       J.S. MEHfA [VERMA, J.)             495

             tioner and post him somewhere near Chandigarh as his wife is      A
             posted a5 a Clerk in the office of the Advocate General, Pun-
             jab, 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.
                                                                               B
       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 ,    a
 High Court's order. However, learned counsel for the respondent placed
 reliance on para 4 (vi) of a Memorandum dated April 3, 1986 (Annexure-
 H) of the Government of India containing guidelines for posting of hus-
 band and wife at one station ~hich are meant to be followed also by all
 the Public Sector Undertakings. Learned counsel urged that according to
 the statutory provisions contained in the Banking Companies (Acquisition D
 and Transfer ofUndertakingstAct, 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 Central Government in this
 behalf.

        There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the E
  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 intc:> account while making the decision in accordance with the
  administrative needs. In the case of All-India Services, the hardship re- F
  suiting 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 administra-
  tive needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one 0
  place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration 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 pref-
- erence 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--- H
    496                 SVPREME COBRJ REPORTS             (1991] SUPP. 2 S.c.R.

A . station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary inci-
    dents 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 undertak-
    ing 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
B   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 consider
C   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 detri-
    ment to the administrative 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 right in the respondent to claim the
D   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.

     KP.                                                        Appeal allowed.