Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Indian Army's Rule Of Spousal Postings Not Mandatory, Subject To Availability Of Vacancies: Delhi High Court [Read Order]

Akshita Saxena
24 Oct 2020 8:34 AM GMT
Indian Armys Rule Of Spousal Postings Not Mandatory, Subject To Availability Of Vacancies: Delhi High Court [Read Order]
x

"The Officers of the Armed Forces are not trained to write orders/judgments, as of the Court, and which are required to deal with each and every contention."The Delhi High Court has held that the Indian Army's Rule on "Spousal Postings" is not mandatory and is subject to availability of vacancies for both spouses at the same station. "The Rule requiring endeavor to be made to...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
10% discount
999
899+GST
(150 INR per month)
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
1,499+GST
(For 1 Year)
Premium account gives you:
  • Ad Free Content
  • Special And Exclusive Stories First Available To Subscribers only
  • Copy Of Judgments/ Orders With Every Reports
  • Copy Of Petitions (Subject to Consent From Concerned Lawyers)
  • Weekly Round Ups Of Supreme Court High Court Judgments/Orders
  • Monthly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Yearly Digests Of Supreme Court And High Courts
  • Live Updates Of Supreme Court And High Courts Hearings
  • WhatsApp Updates
  • News Letters
Already a subscriber?
"The Officers of the Armed Forces are not trained to write orders/judgments, as of the Court, and which are required to deal with each and every contention."

The Delhi High Court has held that the Indian Army's Rule on "Spousal Postings" is not mandatory and is subject to availability of vacancies for both spouses at the same station.

"The Rule requiring endeavor to be made to post both spouses, especially with young children, at the same station, is not mandatory and is subject to availability of vacancies for both spouses at the same station," a Division bench comprising of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon observed.

The order has come in a writ petition filed by Col. Amit Kumar, seeking directions for posting at the same station as his wife till their child is of young age. Whereas presently both of them were posted at Jodhpur, their new posting orders propose to post the Petitioner at Andaman and Nicobar and his wife at Bathinda.

Rejecting the Petitioner's request, the Court said,

"The courts can interfere with orders of transfer, only on the grounds of violation of any Rule and/or on the ground of mala fide. No such ground is made out in the present case."

The Bench noted that pursuant to an interim direction passed in this case, the relevant authority had passed a speaking order dated 30th September 2020, giving reasons as to why for the time being it is not possible to post the Petitioner as well as his wife at the same place.

The Indian Army told the Court that in 12 years of the Petitioner's marriage, the officer and his wife were given three spouse coordinated postings. However, the same was not possible at the present instant due to an "Operational situation". It was submitted,

"It may be appreciated that despite organisational constraints, all requests of the officer and his wife for posting since marriage have been duly acceded to and all out efforts were made to post both of them in the same station. Presently, we have an Operational situation, which includes high security at all levels including HQ Andaman & Nicobar Command. At this crucial stage, it is the duty of all of us who have been nurtured by our organisation, to strengthen the hands of our officers and men along the borders."

In view thereof, the Court said,

"The petition is dismissed, granting 15 days' time from today to the petitioner and his wife to join at their transferred places."

Significantly, the Petitioner's counsel had argued that the aspect highlighted in the Court's interim order on requirements of the small child of the Petitioner and the National Policy for Children, 2013, was not dealt with in the consideration afforded by the Indian Army.

However, the Court clarified that once it has mentioned all the facts in an order pursuant whereto the matter has been considered, faults cannot be found with the speaking order, on the ground of one or the other aspects having not been expressly mentioned.

The Bench remarked,

"The Officers of the Armed Forces are not trained to write orders/judgments, as of the Court, and which are required to deal with each and every contention. It is otherwise clear from a reading of the order dated 30th September 2020, that all aspects as required to be considered, have been considered."

The Court also deprecated the act of giving undue publicity to this matter in the media, during pendency of the petition.

It noted that there were "prominent newspaper reports" of the present hearing, "containing the version of the petitioner and obviously at the instance of the petitioner."

The Court further noted,

"It appears that the said reports would not have appeared in the media without the petitioner feeding the same. In the said media reports, the petitioner while highlighting his requirements/needs has painted the Army Authorities as insensitive. We have brought the said fact to the notice of the senior counsel for the petitioner and informed him that such conduct, when the matter was subjudice, cannot be appreciated." However, the Petitioner demined any involvement thereof.

Case Title: Col. Amit Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order

Next Story
Share it