- (1.) Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 5.7.2015 passed by opposite party No. 4-Branch Manager, Kanpur whereby he has been posted at Varanasi as also the order dated 15.7.2015 passed by opposite party No. 3-Assistant General Manager, Lucknow whereby his representation to retain his posting at Kanpur has been rejected. The respondent-Bank has rejected the petitioner's representation on the ground that the petitioner has been allotted the place of posting at Varanasi on his promotion and in terms of the guidelines that on promotion, he has to leave out of Kanpur.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working in the State Bank of India at Kanpur and his wife is also posted in the Bank of Baroda at Kanpur. The Government of India as well as the Bank concerned has framed the policy to post the spouse at the same station or to the nearest station.
(3.) In view of the policy framed by the Bank, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has a right of posting at Kanpur itself since his wife is posted at Kanpur. In support of his submission, he has also cited a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Smt. Deepa Vashishtha v. State of U.P. and others, 1996 73 FLR 946 (Alld) in which this Court held that the administration is bound to follow the guidelines which has to be adhered in its terms. In this case, the identical issues was dealt with and the Court opined that the husband and wife be transferred to different places only in exceptional circumstances. It is imperative for the authority concerned to allow the posting of husband and wife at one place, though the posting of spouse at different places has not been declined but it has been held that the spouse posting at different place may create a difficulty in their family.;