Shortage of cadre officers is not a valid ground to deny inter-cadre transfer on spouse grounds.

The applicant, a 2021 batch IAS officer of the West Bengal Cadre, married Sh. Lourembam Nelson Mangangcha, an IAS officer of the Assam-Meghalaya Cadre

Seeking to live with her spouse, she applied for an inter-cadre transfer from West Bengal to the Assam-Meghalaya Cadre on September 16, 2025, under the spouse ground policy

While the Governments of Assam and Meghalaya granted their "No Objection Certificates" (NOC), the Government of West Bengal (Respondent No. 2) failed to issue an NOC or views despite reminders

Respondent No. 2 opposed the application on grounds of a severe shortage of IAS officers in the state—citing an actual strength of 298 against a sanctioned strength of 396—and raised a preliminary objection that the OA was premature under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

1. Whether the Original Application is premature and maintainable given that six months had not elapsed from the date of the applicant's representation

2. Whether the State Government can deny an Inter-Cadre Transfer (ICT) on the grounds of "acute shortage of officers" in the state cadre

3. Whether the applicant has a legitimate right to seek a transfer to her spouse's cadre under Rule 5(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954

Rule 5(2) of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, which permits the Central Government to transfer a cadre officer with the concurrence of the concerned State Governments

DoP&T Office Memorandums dated 08.11.2004 and 11.11.2022, which mandate that inter-cadre transfers shall be permitted on the ground of marriage to another All India Service officer, provided it is not to the officer's home state

D.B. Gohil v. Union of India and CEO v. S. Lalitha, establishing that in exceptional circumstances of executive inaction, the requirement to exhaust remedies for six months can be waived

Bhavna Gupta v. Union of India (Delhi HC) and State of West Bengal v. Arsh Verma, which established that administrative shortages cannot override the constitutional right to family life under Article 21

The Tribunal rejected Respondent No. 2's preliminary objection regarding the OA being premature, holding that since the State had shown continued inaction and even indicated a refusal to grant NOC in its counter-reply, requiring the applicant to wait further would serve no purpose

The court reasoned that the right to a healthy family life and parenthood is an incident of Article 21 of the Constitution and must be balanced against administrative exigencies

The court noted that because Respondent No. 2 had already processed similar requests for other officers, the denial to the applicant was discriminatory and contrary to the State’s role as a "model employer"

The Court directed: (i) Respondent No. 2 to issue the NOC within two weeks, failing which it shall be deemed issued; (ii) Respondent No. 1 (Central Govt.) to pass transfer orders within four weeks thereafter; and (iii) Respondent No. 2 to relieve the applicant within two weeks of the Central Government’s order, failing which she shall be deemed relieved