Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Anil Gupta vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 4 June, 2021
Sr. No.106
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
WP(C) No. 1147/2021
CM(4674/2021)
CM(4675/2021)
Anil Gupta
......Petitioner (s).....
Through:- Mr. Sudershan Sharma, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K and others
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. K.D.S.Kotwal, Dy.AG
Coram :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
04.06.2021
1. The challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 31.05.2021
passed in OA/807/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jammu Bench, at Jammu (hereafter for short "Tribunal") in case
titled Dr. Anil Gupta Vs. UT of J&K and others whereby the
prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief seeking stay of
Govt. Order No. 80-ASH of 2021 dated 11.05.2021 passed by
respondent No.2 rejecting his representation as also the
implementation of Govt. Order No. 72-ASH of 2021 dated
29.04.2021 passed by respondent No.2, transferring the petitioner
from the post of Incharge Poultry Geneticist, Jammu and shifting
Page 2 of 5 WP© NO. 1147/2021
him to look after the work of Joint Director, IAH&BP Zakura and
Chief Executive Officer, Livestock Development Board, Kashmir.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that being aggrieved of
Govt. Order No.80-ASH of 2021 dated 11.05.2021 and Govt.
Order No.72-ASH of 2021 dated 29.04.2021, the petitioner
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu for
staying the operation of both the orders, inter alia, on the grounds
that in terms of the Transfer Policy notified vide Government
Order No.861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010 the petitioner has
not completed his tenure of two years and has been transferred
prematurely. It is averred that Transfer Policy notified vide
Government Order No.861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010, which,
among others, provides for minimum tenure of two years of
Government servant at one place of posting, but, in the present
case the petitioner has been transferred just after 11 months; and,
moreover, there are no special circumstances, which warrant
premature transfer of the petitioner. It is also contended that the
impugned order qua the petitioner, on the face of it, is contrary to
the transfer policy formulated by the Government and is also bad
on the ground that no proper procedure, provided under Transfer
Policy for premature transfer, has been followed by the
respondents.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has
rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim relief as the
Tribunal has found that petitioner has already been relieved from
Page 3 of 5 WP© NO. 1147/2021
his place of posting and another officer has already taken the
charge of the post, held by the petitioner at Jammu, therefore, the
Tribunal was of the view that no prima facie case was made out for
staying the operation of the impugned orders. However, it was
observed that looking to the grounds taken by the petitioner in the
OA against his transfer the case was directed to be listed again on
07.07.2021 as the same required early disposal.
4. By virtue of instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the
orders impugned, amongst other, on the grounds that the Tribunal
has failed to appreciate the office record as well as pleadings
besides specific ground taken by the petitioner of violation of
Transfer Policy while passing the order impugned; that the orders
impugned are liable to be set aside as the same are against the
mandate of transfer policy, which contains a stipulation that the
minimum tenure of government employee on a particular post shall
be of two years and maximum of three years; that the premature
transfers, wherever unavoidable in the interest of administration,
shall be ordered with the prior approval of the Minister Incharge
that too for the reasons to be recorded and the said Transfer Policy
has attained statutory flavour after the issuance of SRO 307 which
specifically prescribes that every transfer shall be ordered in
accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir
Government Business Rules and Transfer Policy notified vide
Govt. Order No.861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010.
Page 4 of 5 WP© NO. 1147/2021
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. K.D.S.
Kotwal, Dy. AG submits that another officer has joined the post
held by the petitioner and is performing duties on the said post
from the date of his joining and the petitioner has been relieved.
He further submits that the Tribunal has exercised the jurisdiction
correctly and present writ petition against the interim order is not
maintainable. He further submits that so far as the contention of
petitioner, that his transfer is bad, being premature, is concerned,
the same is untenable because even under the transfer policy the
Government is empowered to pass a premature transfer order
depending upon the exigency of service. The Government, being
employer, is the master in transferring its employees as per the
administrative exigency depending upon the requirement of
services of an employee at a particular place and such a discretion
of the Government cannot be interfered with, without any proper
and substantial reasons.
6. We have carefully bestowed our attention to the writ record as also
to the orders impugned so as to ascertain whether the order
impugned, passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the interim
relief, warrants interference at this stage.
7. It is not in dispute that the new incumbent has joined the post,
previously held by the petitioner and the Tribunal has correctly
appreciated this fact while rejecting the interim relief and directed
listing of the OA on 07.07.2021 for final disposal. Even otherwise,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the
Page 5 of 5 WP© NO. 1147/2021
learned Tribunal since it is an order passed on an interim
application and main matter is yet to be decided by the learned
Tribunal. So it will be appropriate for the petitioner to agitate the
grounds taken in the instant petition which are otherwise available
to him before the learned Tribunal and the same can be considered
by the learned Tribunal at the time of hearing the petition finally.
8. That being the situation and in view of the facts and circumstances
discussed above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the
same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM(s).
(Javed Iqbal Wani) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Judge
Jammu
04.06.2021
Madan Verma-PS
MADAN LAL VERMA
2021.06.09 11:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
