Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 24: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has held that transfer is an exigency of service and an employee has no vested right to insist upon posting at a place of his or her choice, while declining to quash the transfer of a Labour Officer appointed under the Prime Minister's Special Package for migrants.
Judicial Member M.S. Latif, deciding O.A. No. 912/2026 filed by Beauty Hassan, observed that courts cannot substitute their choice of posting for that of the competent authority merely because another arrangement may appear preferable from the employee's point of view.
The applicant, appointed as a Labour Officer in 2020 under the Prime Minister's Special Package Scheme, was initially posted at Budgam and was later transferred to Kulgam on request. By Order No. 180-LC of 2026 dated June 15, 2026, she was transferred from Kulgam and posted as Labour Officer, Ganderbal Circle-II, against an available vacancy.
She challenged the transfer before the Tribunal and sought permission to continue at Kulgam or, alternatively, to be posted at a secure place in the vicinity, including Shopian, while raising security and other concerns.
The Tribunal noted, however, that the applicant had already joined at Ganderbal pursuant to the transfer order. It observed that once an employee has complied with a transfer order and joined the transferred post, the order stands executed and ordinarily ceases to have operative effect for the purpose of seeking its quashing.
During the hearing, Advocate Suhaib F. Bandey appeared for the applicant, while Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib represented the J&K Government and other official respondents.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that she had joined the new posting under compulsion and protest. The Tribunal, however, recorded that this assertion had not been substantiated beyond an averment made in the application. The Government counsel argued that after the applicant joined at Ganderbal, the transfer order stood executed.
Referring to a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments governing transfers, the Tribunal reiterated that it is for the employer to transfer an employee keeping administrative requirements in view, and an employee cannot insist either upon being transferred to, or retained at, a particular place.
At the same time, the Tribunal took note of the security concerns raised by the applicant and observed that where life and liberty are exposed to a threat, the State has a duty to protect every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, noting that preservation of family life is a facet of Article 21. The Tribunal observed that the competent authority was not powerless to review a transfer order in appropriate circumstances.
While rejecting the prayer for quashing the already-executed transfer order, CAT directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representations on merits and in accordance with law, while giving due regard to the decision of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, and other attending circumstances.
The exercise has been ordered to be completed within three weeks, with the Tribunal directing that the matter be listed thereafter for compliance.
(JNF) |
