Abdul Hameed Bhat vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR BENCH, SRINAGAR

O.A. 94/2025 WITH M.A. 229/2026 Heard and Reserved on: 26.09.2026 Pronouncement of Order on: 15.10.2026

C O R A M

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE,MEMBER(JUDL.) Abdul. Hamid Bhat S/o Gh.Ahmad Bhat. R/o Isham -Sonawari District Bandipora aged 56. years. Pin code 193502. ……Applicant By Advocate : Mr. M Y Lone VERSUS GOVERNMEMT OF J&K. Through Commissioner/secretary to Government revenue department & ors. ….Respondents By Advocate :- Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, DAG

O R D E R (FINAL) JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

01. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, questioning the order bearing No. 07 of 2025, No. DCB/SQ/2025/126-135 dated 18.01.2025, whereby, along giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi with other employees, he was transferred from Tehsil Office Hajin to Tehsil Office Tulail, District Bandipora. The applicant alleges that the impugned transfer is punitive and retaliatory, having been issued in the backdrop of contempt proceedings initiated by him before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, and that the same is vitiated by mala fides and arbitrary exercise of power. He has also sought consideration of his representation for adjustment at a nearby Tehsil on account of the medical condition of his wife and his own health condition, besides claiming compensation.

02. The applicant states that he was initially engaged as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar by the Tehsildar, Sonawari, on 30.08.1983 against an available vacancy on consolidated wages of Rs.275/- per month for a period of three months, pursuant to the instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla. According to him, he continued to discharge his duties thereafter. The record further shows that the giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No.123/2012 seeking absorption in Class-IV service.

03. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 03.07.2012 passed in SWP No.123/2012, directed the respondents to take a decision regarding absorption of the applicant against a Class-IV post within the stipulated period. The respondents challenged the said order before the Division Bench, but the appeal came to be dismissed on 01.06.2016, thereby upholding the earlier order of the Writ Court.

04. The applicant thereafter pursued contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid directions by absorbing the applicant in job from 01.08.2019 instead 03.07.2012. The record placed by him includes proceedings in Contempt Petition No. 220/2021 before the Hon’ble High Court. In the proceedings dated 10.07.2024, the Hon’ble High Court dealt with the personal appearance of the concerned officers and required further compliance in the matter. The pendency of the contempt giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi proceedings is also admitted by the respondents, who state that pursuant to the directions dated 21.12.2024, a fresh compliance report had been filed before the Hon’ble High Court.

05. The applicant asserts that, during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, respondent No.3 called him to his office and pressurized him to withdraw the contempt petition. According to the applicant, upon his refusal to do so, the impugned transfer order dated 18.01.2025 was issued in retaliation. He further states that he had been transferred only about five months earlier and that the subsequent transfer to Tulail caused hardship, particularly because his wife had recently undergone cardiac treatment and required his care.

06. The applicant accordingly submitted a representation dated 21.01.2025, requesting that the impugned transfer be stayed and that he be accommodated at a nearby Tehsil on humanitarian and medical grounds. The respondents, however, contend that the representation was duly giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi considered in accordance with the applicable rules and was rejected by a reasoned consideration order. They have also placed on record that the impugned transfer was one amongst transfers of seven employees of the district and was made in the interest of administration and smooth functioning of official work.

07. The respondents further submit that the applicant was absorbed as a Class-IV employee in the Revenue Department in August 2019 pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and that, since his absorption, he had remained within the local Tehsils of Sumbal and Hajin and had completed more than five years of regular service there. It is their specific case that an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to seek posting at a place of his choice and that due procedure was followed while transferring the seven employees, including the applicant.

08. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation that the applicant was ever pressurized to withdraw the giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi contempt petition. They maintain that the impugned order was not issued by way of retaliation but purely in administrative interest. They have also stated that respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, was the competent authority to effect the transfers covered by the impugned order.

09. There is no rejoinder to the respondents’ reply in the present Original Application.

10. I have considered the pleadings together with the documents placed on record by the applicant and the respondents.

11. The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the impugned transfer order dated 18.01.2025 warrants interference on any of the grounds pleaded by the applicant, namely, mala fides, retaliatory action for pursuing contempt proceedings, incompetence of the authority passing the order, arbitrariness, or violation of any enforceable service rule or infraction of any other applicable statutory or administrative provisions giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi governing the matter.

12. It is well settled that transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service and that a government employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. The Tribunal does not ordinarily sit in appeal over an administrative decision relating to posting and transfer. Interference is warranted where the order is shown to have been passed by an incompetent authority, in violation of a statutory provision, or is vitiated by established mala fides or other legally recognized infirmity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated these principles in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402.

13. The applicant's principal allegation is that the transfer was ordered in retaliation for his pursuing the contempt proceedings. A plea of mala fides, however, cannot rest merely upon an allegation. The burden lies upon the person alleging mala fides to place before the Court giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi material from which such inference can reasonably and cogently be drawn. Mere proximity in time between two events, without more, does not establish that the subsequent administrative action was actuated by an improper motive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that allegations of mala fides must be supported by concrete material and cannot be accepted on conjecture or surmise.

14. In the present case, the fact that the applicant had initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents and that such proceedings were pending is not in dispute. What is disputed is the applicant's allegation that he was pressurized to withdraw the proceedings and that the impugned transfer was thereafter ordered as a punitive measure.

15. No contemporaneous communication, order, statement, or other material has been brought on record which establishes that respondent No.3, or any other officer, directed the applicant to withdraw the contempt giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi proceedings or that the transfer order was issued for that reason. The allegation of pressure is thus unsupported by independent material. The pendency of the contempt proceedings, by itself, cannot lead to the conclusion that the subsequent transfer was retaliatory.

16. The chronology relied upon by the applicant does warrant examination of the circumstances in which the transfer was made, but the impugned order itself is not confined to the applicant. It forms part of a transfer order concerning seven employees of the district. This circumstance, though not conclusive by itself, is relevant while examining the allegation that the applicant alone was singled out for an ulterior purpose.

17. The respondents have also furnished a specific administrative justification, namely, that the applicant had remained in the local Tehsils since his absorption in 2019 and had completed more than five years of regular service there. The applicant has not filed a rejoinder controverting this specific defence. There is, therefore, no basis on the giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

present pleadings to reject the respondents’ assertion as inherently untenable.

18. The applicant has also questioned the transfer on account of the fact that he had been transferred only about five months earlier. Even assuming that the applicant's previous transfer was of recent origin, the mere short interval between two transfers does not, by itself, create an enforceable right against a subsequent transfer. The legality of the later order has to be tested on the recognized grounds of judicial review.

19. Likewise, the medical condition of the applicant and his wife undoubtedly constitutes a circumstance which could properly be brought to the notice of the competent authority. The applicant did so through his representation dated 21.01.2025. However, a medical or personal hardship, by itself, does not confer an enforceable right to a particular place of posting. The respondents state that the representation was considered and rejected after examining the relevant facts and rules. There is no giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi material before me to establish that the competent authority acted without considering the representation.

20. The applicant has sought a direction requiring his adjustment at a nearby Tehsil. Such a direction would necessarily require this Tribunal to substitute its assessment of administrative convenience for that of the competent authority. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal does not extend to directing the administration as to where a transferable employee should be posted merely because another place may be more convenient to him.

21. The plea regarding competence of respondent No.2 also does not merit acceptance on the material presently before me. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, was the competent authority to issue the transfer order concerning the employees covered by it. No statutory rule, notification or other binding instrument has been placed by the applicant demonstrating that respondent No.2 lacked such competence.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

22. In the absence of material establishing that the impugned order was passed by an incompetent authority, in violation of a statutory provision, or by way of proved mala fide exercise of power, this Tribunal cannot interfere merely because the applicant considers the transfer inconvenient or believes that the transfer ought not to have been made at that stage.

23. The prayer for consideration of the representation also does not survive for adjudication in the form in which it was originally made. The respondents have specifically stated that the representation dated 21.01.2025 was considered and rejected through a consideration order. The applicant has filed no rejoinder disputing this assertion or demonstrating that the consideration order is independently under challenge before this Tribunal.

24. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to find any legally sustainable ground for setting aside the transfer order dated 18.01.2025. The Original Application, therefore, does not warrant interference with the impugned transfer.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

25. The applicant has subsequently filed M.A. No. 229/2026 seeking a direction to respondents Nos.2 and 4 to release his unpaid salary/wages. The application states that, vide order No.74 of 2025 dated 08.11.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, directed the Tehsildar, Tulail, to withhold the applicant's salary. The applicant contends that he continued to work at Tulail and that the withholding of salary was without lawful justification. The application also places reliance upon the earlier proceedings concerning determination of his date of birth and the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in O.A. No.819/2025.

26. The order dated 31.07.2025 passed in O.A. No.819/2025 records that the applicant had relied upon an age certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Bandipora, dated 29.05.2019, while the respondents had subsequently called upon him to undergo another medical examination for determining his age. The said O.A. was disposed of with a direction that, if the applicant was to be giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi examined by a fresh medical board, the same should be done strictly in accordance with law, keeping in view the earlier age certificate, and that no order should be passed unilaterally regarding the certificate.

27. The present M.A. has brought on record the subsequent order dated 08.11.2025, whereby an inquiry was directed into the contradiction in the date of birth reflected in the applicant's service records and school records. The respondents rely upon the school record, including the discharge certificates issued by Government High School, Asham, showing the date of birth as 01.01.1960. According to the respondents, acceptance of this date of birth would mean that the applicant had attained the age of superannuation much earlier.

28. The respondents further state that, pursuant to the inquiry, the District Treasury Officer, Bandipora, submitted a report concluding that the date of birth reflected in the school record was 01.01.1960 and that the applicant had already crossed the age of superannuation. They giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi consequently contend that the applicant is not entitled to salary for the period after he ceased to be legally in service. The respondents have also relied upon a communication of the Tehsildar, Tulail, dated 01.04.2026, stating that the applicant's salary had been withheld from October 2025 and that he had not reported for official duties with effect from 07.11.2025.

29. The controversy concerning the applicant's date of birth is thus a substantive dispute which cannot appropriately be conclusively determined in the present M.A. merely on the basis of the competing documents. On one hand, the respondents rely upon the school records showing 01.01.1960; on the other, the applicant has relied upon the age certificate issued by the District Medical Board in 2019 and the proceedings in O.A. No.819/2025. The latter proceedings specifically required that the issue be dealt with in accordance with the applicable provisions and that no unilateral action be taken with regard to the earlier certificate.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

30. At the same time, the respondents cannot indefinitely withhold the applicant's salary merely because an inquiry concerning his date of birth is pending. The material placed before me does not disclose that, as on the date of consideration of the present M.A., a final order determining the applicant's date of birth and consequential date of superannuation had been passed by the competent authority. The respondents' reply itself indicates that the matter concerning retrospective retirement was still being processed.

31. There is also a factual dispute regarding the period for which the applicant actually discharged duties. The applicant asserts that he continued to work at Tulail and that his earned wages were withheld, whereas the respondents rely upon the report of the Tehsildar, Tulail, stating that he had not attended office after 07.11.2025. This factual controversy requires verification from the attendance records, joining report, service record and other relevant official records.

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

32. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to issue a blanket direction for immediate release of the entire salary claimed in the M.A., particularly when the respondents have raised a serious and document-based issue concerning the applicant's date of birth and consequent entitlement to remain in service. At the same time, the respondents cannot keep the issue open-ended or withhold the applicant's salary without taking a final decision in accordance with law.

33. The appropriate course, therefore, is to require the competent authority to take a final, reasoned decision on the applicant's date of birth and consequential date of superannuation, strictly in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, including Article 35-AA, and keeping in view the earlier age certificate dated 29.05.2019 as well as the school records relied upon by the respondents and the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in O.A. No.819/2025.

34. While undertaking the said exercise, the competent giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi authority shall also verify the applicant's actual service position and attendance for the period for which salary has been withheld. If the official record establishes that the applicant actually discharged duties during any period for which salary has been withheld, the salary for such period shall be released in accordance with law, subject to the final determination of his date of birth and service entitlement. If, on the other hand, the competent authority determines, after following due procedure, that the applicant had already attained the age of superannuation and was not legally entitled to continue in service, the consequential monetary claim shall be dealt with in accordance with the applicable rules.

35. The above exercise shall be undertaken independently by the competent authority, after affording the applicant an adequate opportunity to place on record his documents and objections, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and law governing the field.

36. The issue of salary, therefore, cannot be finally giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi

adjudicated in favour of either side merely on the competing assertions contained in the pleadings. The claim shall necessarily follow the determination of the applicant's lawful service status and the verification of the period during which he actually rendered service.

37. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, O.A. No. 94/2025 is dismissed, insofar as the challenge to the transfer order bearing No.07 of 2025, No. DCB/SQ/2025/126-135 dated 18.01.2025 is concerned. The challenge to the transfer order and the prayer for adjustment at a particular nearby Tehsil are accordingly declined.

38. However, M.A. No.229/2026 is disposed of with directions to the competent authority to:

(i) Determine the applicant's date of birth and consequential date of superannuation strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, including Article 35- AA of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations;

(ii) The respondents shall consider the school records giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi relied upon by them, as well as the age certificate dated 29.05.2019 issued by the District Medical Board, Bandipora, and the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in O.A. No. 819/2025. The respondents shall not treat the inquiry report prepared pursuant to Order No. 74 of 2025 as, by itself, conclusive of the applicant’s date of birth, without passing the requisite final order and complying with the directions already issued in O.A. No. 819/2025.

(iii) Afford the applicant reasonable opportunity to produce his documents and objections before a final decision is taken;

(iv) Verify the applicant's actual attendance/service rendered during the period for which salary has been withheld; and

(v) Thereafter, determine, in accordance with law and on its own merits, the salary/wages, if any, legally due to the applicant, and release the same accordingly.

39. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi this order. The decision shall be a reasoned and speaking order and shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

40. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim raised in the M.A. No.229/2026, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order.

41. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

42. Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.

(JUSTICE RITU TAGORE) Member(Judl.)

15.10.2026 DEVENDRA TRIPATHI

giv.in Reason: I am the author of this document Location:

Devendra Tripathi