MEENU GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above captioned two petitions, the challenge is to the impugned transfer orders of 5th October, 2015 and 1st October, 2015 respectively whereby petitioners have been transferred from Delhi to Chandigarh by respondent No.3 -Company. Petitioner -Meenu Gupta upon being promoted to the post of Deputy Manager (Scale -III) has been transferred to Chandigarh whereas the transfer of petitioner -Sunita Malik, Assistant Manager (Scale -II), is a general one. These transfers have been made under the Transfer and Mobility Policy (TMP) for Class -I Officers of respondent -Company.

(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard together as the challenge to the impugned transfers is on identical grounds and so, by this common judgment, these petitions are being disposed of together. To assail the impugned transfers, learned senior counsel for petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to the Office Memorandum of 30th September, 2009 (Annexure P -3) dealing with the posting of husband and wife at the same station and also relied upon directions issued by first respondent vide Communication of 23rd September, 2014 (Annexure P -4) on the subject of transfer/posting of female employees in Public Sector Insurance Companies. Pertinently, respondent -Company is a Public Sector Insurance Company.

(3.) At the hearing, it was pointed out by learned senior counsel for petitioners that husband of petitioner -Meenu Gupta is posted as Administrative Officer (Judicial) in this Court whereas the husband of petitioner -Sunita Malik is posted as Personal Assistant in Delhi University and so, it was submitted that the impugned transfers are in utter violation of afore -referred Office Memorandum (Annexure P -3) and Government's Circular (Annexure P -4). Attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph No.5 of the Office Memorandum (Annexure P -3) which provides that specific reasons are required to be given if the posting of husband and wife at the same station is not made and no such reasons are coming forth by the counter -affidavit by respondent - Company.