GHULAM QADIR DAR vs UTS JAMMU AND KASHMIR on 31 December 2025

ORDER

(Oral)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.):- Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

a. Quash and set aside the impugned transfer order bearing No. BMOB/Estt/2025-26/1485-19 dated 17.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4;

b. Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue at his present place of posting and restrain them from giving effect to the impugned transfer order.

c. Any other order, writ or direction may also be issued in favour of the applicant and against the respondents which this Honble Tribunal deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Alongside the main reliefs, the applicant has also sought for interim relief: Till the final disposal of O.A, it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned transfer order bearing No. BMOB/Estt/2025-26/1485-19 dated 17.12.2025, and permit the applicant to continue at his present place of posting. Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.

3. The applicant is a Pharmacist serving in the respondent department and is aggrieved of an order dated 17.12.2025 issued by the Block Medical Officer, whereby he has been directed to report to PHC Ashtango with immediate effect and to continue there till further orders.

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

4. Learned counsels for the applicant, Mr. Bhat Fayaz along with Mr. Mohd. Asim, submit that the applicant challenged the order impugned on various grounds as have been mentioned in the O.A. He submits that the order impugned dated 17.12.2025 is without jurisdiction as in terms of a circular issued by Director, Health Services dated 20.08.2021, it has been stated that the Chief Medical Officers / Block Medical Officers are effecting transfers / deployments of doctors / Paramedical staff of their own, which is beyond their jurisdiction / competence and also in violation of the transfer policy.

5. Learned counsels for the applicant further submit that since the Block Medical Officer, Bandipora, has acted without jurisdiction, as such submits that the order impugned is bad.

6. Prima facie, what appears from the contents of the order impugned is that the applicant, who is a Pharmacist, has been directed to report to PHC Ashtangoo in place of one Nazir Ahmad Dar who has retired.

7. Admittedly, it is for the Block Medical Officer to see that all the Public Health Centres (PHC) under his control are manned by proper medical and para-medical staff, and in the estimation of

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the Court, directing a Pharmacist to report to some other PHC within the control of the Block Development Officer would not be contrary to the law coupled with the fact when transfer is an exigency and an employee has no right to seek the posting of his choice.

8. Learned counsels for the applicant further submit that in addition, the applicant has a son who is specially-abled child suffering from 60% disability. To this effect, he has also annexed a certificate issued by the competent authority dated 16.12.2020. They further submit that the applicant is the only caretaker of his specially-abled child and it may be difficult for his specially-abled son to look after himself in absence of his father- the applicant, if his case is not considered for his posting back to PHC Nadihal or to any other place nearer to residence.

9. Admittedly, child rights have to be respected coupled with the fact as stated by Mr. Bhat Fayaz that the applicant is the only care taker.

10. Ordinarily, Courts do not interfere in orders of transfer which is always left to the competent authority to decide the same in the public and administrative interest.

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

12. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A. is taken up for its disposal.

13. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall treat this O.A. as representation, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on its merits within a period of ten

(10) days, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Lt. Col. Suman T. Mathew v. Union of India decided on 17.10.2025. Further, for ten days, the present place of posting of the applicant shall not be disturbed. However, it is made clear that beyond ten days, the stay of the applicant shall be at his own risk and responsibility.

14. Accordingly, O.A./1494/2025 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

15. No order as to costs.

(M.S. Latif) Member (Judl.) Abhishek Punia Court Master 31.12.2025

Location:

ABHISHEK PUNIA