Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 24.5
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Aircraft X was enroute to LGA in my sector which owns up to and including 29000 feet. When the aircraft was 20 miles or so southwest of HPW Aircraft Y data tag was displayed to my scope about 3 miles in front of Aircraft X. Aircraft Y was at 31000 feet in the HPW sector which owns the airspace above mine. I looked up at the Status Information Area to see if there was an In Trail requirement for LGA and there was NO IN TRAIL listed. I deleted the data tag and continued working my aircraft. When Aircraft X was north of HPW I called sector 10 for the handoff as they had not taken the handoff by the time they normally would have. The controller told me to put Aircraft X behind Aircraft Y. I replied that wasn't my airspace and not my traffic and we were not responsible for sequencing aircraft in other sectors. I asked if he was refusing the traffic and he wouldn't answer. I called the supervisor over to explain what was going on and then called sector 10 again. He told me to put the aircraft in trail. I told him to put it on tape that he was refusing the handoff and he said to put them in trail. I asked if he would take a point out and he said NO. By now Aircraft X was approximately 5 miles from the boundary. I immediately turned Aircraft X to the left on a heading of 270 and initiated a point out to sector 12 as the aircraft would pass through their airspace. Eventually sector 11 took the handoff and I continued the left turn and cleared Aircraft X direct PXT and on course and transferred communications.This has been a recurring problem at ZDC for years. There is a perception that vertically stratified sectors have to work together to sequence aircraft that are going in to one receiving sector. Repeatedly it has been confirmed that there is no requirement to do so and each sector is only responsible for its own traffic. In this case there was not even a miles in trail requirement. The two aircraft concerned were approximately 20 miles behind another LGA arrival and no others were nearby. This was more a matter of the sector 10 controller just being difficult. Displaying a data block on someone's scope does NOT constitute coordination; and does not convey what they want done. Knowing there was no in trail requirement we are normally comfortable with 3 miles in trail even if both aircraft are in the same sector!  Chapter 5 of the 7110.65 specifies that the RECEIVING controller will issue control instructions.  This must be done in a timely manner; not 10 miles from the boundary. Refusing to take the handoff did a disservice to the user (Aircraft X); could have been unsafe given there was other traffic in my sector and was unprofessional to say the least. Refusing to take a point out was also unnecessary and unprofessional. There was NO traffic anywhere near Aircraft X and the sector 10 controller's action was merely spiteful.I suggest that a clarification of controller's responsibilities be issued that stratified sectors are not responsible for in trail restrictions; that receiving controllers taking traffic from multiple sectors/stratums not make transferring controllers sequence traffic with aircraft in other sectors. If traffic volume is such that a sector is going to be overwhelmed by getting 2 or more feeds of traffic; both of which are complying w/ any IN TRAIL requirements; then Traffic Management Unit should be more involved and consider more restrictions. In this case we are talking about 2 aircraft I find it hard to believe that this presented difficulty for the controller involved.
ZDC Controller refused to take a handoff from an adjacent sector. The receiving controller felt the aircraft should have been sequenced. The transferring controller felt there was no sequencing requirement.