Shahzada amiq hussain vs COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT on 26 October 2026

ORDER

(Final)

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

The applicants, 05 (five) in number, have filed the instant O.A.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

seeking quashment of Government order No. 27-JK (Coop) of 2026 dated 01.10.2026 to the extent it transfers them from Kashmir Division to Jammu Division. In addition, a direction is sought upon the respondents to retain/adjust the applicants against the available posts of Assistant Registrars Cooperative or equivalent posts in Kashmir Division, in terms of the departmental proposal dated 15.07.2026 and the available vacancy position.

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the O.A., are that the applicants were appointed as Junior Supervisors/Sub Auditors as direct recruits on different dates and they were, subsequently, considered for their promotion to the post of Senior Supervisors/Auditors in February, 2011. The applicants, pending clearance by the J&K Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee, vide Order No. 15-JK (CEOP) of 2026 dated 11.06.2026 were placed as Incharge Registrars/Incharge Auditors in their own pay and grade with charge allowance as admissible under rules for a period of 06 (six) months or till the posts are filled up on regular basis on recommendations of JKPSC/DPC, whichever is earlier.

3. As stated, the applicants, after their placement as Incharge Assistant Registrars/Auditors in terms of Government Order No. 27- JK(Coop) of 2026 dated 01.10.2026, have been transferred, amongst others, from their respective places to their new places of posting as shown in the transfer order, which is assailed through the medium of this O.A. on the grounds as are urged therein.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

4. The matter came up for consideration on 07.10.2026. On that day, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable, and it suffers from non- application of mind inasmuch as the competent authority has failed to consider the relevant facts, particularly, the availability of suitable posts of Assistant Registrars in Kashmir Division and departmental proposal dated 15.07.2026, recommending adjustment of the applicants therein and, as such, it is submitted that the order has been issued in contravention of proposal made by respondent no.2 and same deserves to be set aside and quashed. It was further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the applicable Transfer Policy as contained in the Government Order No. 861-GAD of 2010 dated 28.07.2010, read with Government Order No. 948- JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 15.10.2020. It is further submitted that the applicants have been displaced from Kashmir Division despite availability of suitable/equivalent posts within the Kashmir Division and that no administrative or public interest would be served by displacing the applicants herein from Kashmir to Jammu Division, as such, the order impugned is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5. A submission was also made as regards the applicant no. 1, namely, Shahzada Amiq Hussain, who is already 59 years of age and the same is reflected in the memo of parties of the O.A. as well. It was submitted that the other applicants are around 55 years of age and displacing them at this stage would not be in the individual interest of

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the applicants, as they have to prepare their pension papers and other allied documents, more particularly, applicant no. 1.

6. This Tribunal has already, in a number of applications, held that the law is already settled that the scope of the Courts, as far as the order of transfer is concerned, is very limited. It is no more res integra that a Court can only interfere, if an order of transfer is mala fide or passed by an incompetent authority. The law is also settled that the transfer is an exigency of service and no employee has a vested right to be posted at a place of his choice. Once an employee accepts the public employment, he has to serve wherever the employer so chooses, however, the same has to be in the public and administrative interest. To this effect, this Tribunal is fortified by a long line of decisions passed in the following cases:

1. Namrata Verma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2021 OnLine SC 3337

2. Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592;

3. B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131;

4. Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357;

5. Union of India and Ors vs. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 (3) SCC 445;

6. Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Poshan, AIR 1989 SC 1433;

7. Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2 SCC 532;

8. State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270;

9. Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214;

10. Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169;

11. Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104;

12. Union of India and others vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245;

ABHISHEK PUNIA

13. State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004) 7 SCC 405;

14. State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402;

15. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299;

16. Ankit Yadu v. State of Chhatisgarh (WPS No. 6125/2026) Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur decided on 18.08.2026

17. Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304;

18. Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178;

19. State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306;

20. Anita Sharma vs. State of J&K 2019 Legal Eagle 489

21. Mohammad Yaqub v. State of J&K 1984 SLJ 167

22. Syed Hilal Ahmad & Ors. v. State 2015 (3) JKJ 398

23. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Shri Bhagwan 2008 (8) SCC 574

24. E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3;

25. Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445;

26. Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659;

27. Union of India v. Gh. Mohd. Sheikh 1998 SLJ JK 175

7. On 07.10.2026, Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, appeared for the respondents, who was confronted, in view of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants, that there are as many as 62 available vacancies of Assistant Registrars, some in Kashmir Division and some in Jammu Division, and that administrative interest can be well served, if people from Jammu are adjusted within Jammu Division and vice versa. Learned counsel representing the applicants also submitted that dislodging the applicants would not serve any administrative interest, as it would take them months, to adjust at their new place of posting and by the time some of them would be

ABHISHEK PUNIA

superannuated as well.

8. Thereafter, notices were issued upon the respondents and they were directed to file response, particularly, as regards the posts lying vacant in Kashmir Division as also in Jammu Division. In the meantime, it was provided that if any representation has been filed by the applicants, the same shall be considered, notwithstanding the pendency of this O.A. and the competent authority would balance the individual hardships of the applicants and the administrative and public interest.

9. Reply stands filed by the respondents in the matter, which is supported by duly sworn affidavit signed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Block Srinagar.

10. It is averred in the preliminary objections that transfer is a routine incident of service, and a government employee holds no vested or fundamental right to remain posted at a specific location or within a specific division. It is added that the impugned Order dated 01.10.2026 was issued strictly "In the interest of administration and the functional requirements of the Department" to ensure optimal deployment of human resources across the Union Territory. It is added that vide Order dated 11.06.2026, the applicants were granted temporary placement as In-charge Assistant Registrars "in their own pay and grade, with charge allowance as admissible under rules", and having willfully accepted this higher placement and actively drawing the financial benefits of the associated charge allowance, the applicants are legally bound by the service conditions and transfer

ABHISHEK PUNIA

liabilities attached to this higher post.

11. It is added in the reply that in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative (Gazetted) Service rules notified via SRO-663 dated 25.10.2019, the post of Assistant Registrar/Equivalents (Level-6F) is explicitly and unambiguously classified as a UT Cadre post, and as the applicants are currently occupying, discharging the duties of, and drawing charge allowances for a UT Cadre post, they carry a UT-wide transfer liability and can be legitimately posted anywhere within the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to meet departmental exigencies.

12. The respondents further submitted that the applicants have already provided prolonged and uninterrupted tenures in Kashmir Division, far exceeding the normal tenure limits prescribed under the Transfer Policy, where the period of duty of the applicants ranges from 3 years to 8 years. Therefore, submitted that retaining officers in a single division for such protracted periods severely compromises administrative efficiency, justifying their immediate rotational transfer.

13. The response also averred that the competent authority has duly applied its mind and exercised profound care while issuing the impugned transfer order, directly refuting any claims of arbitrariness. The case of the officers, figuring at serial no. 6 (Mr. Tariq Hussain Naik) and serial no. 10 (Mr. Azad Hussain) of the impugned order is demonstrated, stating that the said officials are retiring within the next three months, as such, they were deliberately retained within

ABHISHEK PUNIA

their home districts of Doda and Rajouri respectively. Further, reliance is laid on Rule 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, read with Article 73 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), that an employee cannot approbate and reprobate by enjoying the financial benefits of a higher UT Cadre post while refusing its inherent transfer liabilities. Reliance is also laid upon the observation made by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case titled as, Mohan Lal (Inspector, District Reasi, Cooperative Department J&K), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal directed that employees who refuse to serve across the mandated jurisdiction of a higher post have no right to retain the financial benefits of said post, must relinquish the promotion, and be immediately reverted to their substantive cadre.

14. The respondents also assert that the impugned order has been issued strictly in the interest of administration and functional requirements, is completely devoid of any mala fide, and fully complies with SRO-663, which unequivocally creates a UT-wide transfer liability for the applicants. The response as regards the availability of vacancies is also placed stating that there are currently 55 vacancies in Kashmir Division and 39 vacancies in Jammu Division.

15. At last, the respondents submit that they have acted strictly within their legal competence, guided by statutory rules including SRO-663, the governing transfer policies, and national cooperative initiatives, to ensure efficient and uninterrupted departmental functioning across the entire Union Territory, and seek dismissal of

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the O.A. with exemplary costs.

16. As stated in the O.A., the applicant no. 1 herein, is 59 years old, who is nearing his superannuation. It is settled that when an employee is nearing his superannuation, the competent authority has to post him nearer to his hometown where he can easily process his pension papers. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case titled as Bodu Singh v. State of Rajasthan passed in Civil Appeal No. 8153/2025 decided on 22.04.2025 as also in the case titled as Ram Bhan Singh Bhadoriya v. State of M.P. decided on 06.04.2022 in WPC No. 7901/2022, wherein in both the cases, their lordships relied on a Division Bench judgment and held that “the applicant having limited period left for reaching his superannuation, it would have been appropriate to post the applicant nearer to his hometown and the respondents should have taken note of this fact”. I would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case titled as Smt. Rani Jain v. Secretary and Transport Commissioner decided on 13.05.2019 wherein their lordships have reaffirmed that “the competent authority can take note of the date of superannuation of an employee before issuing an order of transfer particularly when the employee is at the fag end of his career”. Even otherwise, he deserves humanitarian view in the light of the fact that he is superannuating within one year. To this effect, I am also fortified by the judgments titled as:

1. Home Secretary, UT of Chandigarh v. Darshjit Singh, 1993

(4) SCC 25; &

ABHISHEK PUNIA

2. Smt. Deepa Vashishtha v. State of U.P. and Anr., 1996 (73FLR) 946 (All) (DB).

17. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no reason assigned by the competent authority while transferring the applicants and, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to give reason as to what administrative and public interest would be achieved by not considering the proposal of the respondent no. 2 - Registrar cooperatives, who otherwise is the Head of the Department, as such, he submitted that the order impugned, transferring the applicants is mala fide and not for the professed purpose.

18. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, while rebutting the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants, in his reply, stated that the competent authority in the Administrative Department is not subordinate or bound by the proposals initiated by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies. The earlier recommendation to adjust the applicants within Kashmir Division was legitimately superseded by the broader administrative necessity evaluated after the 15.09.2026 directive. He submitted that the existence of vacancies in Kashmir Division does not prohibit the Government from utilizing UT Cadre officers to address pressing operational deficiencies in Jammu Division, particularly to push the Ministry of Cooperation's grassroots and border-area initiatives.

19. In favour of the applicants, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned transfer order also violates the concept of convenient spouse postings of employees as well. To this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Para A4 of the Transfer

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Policy clarifies that spouse postings may only be accommodated "as far as possible subject to availability of the post and keeping in view the interest of administration as well".

20. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as S. K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266, wherein their lordships have held that the preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and ambit of Article 21, which guarantees life and liberty, has to be considered as far as applicable even in the matters of transfer.

21. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court has extensively perused the contents of the O.A., the reply filed by the respondents, and the legal propositions cited at the Bar.

22. The instant case is taken up for its disposal.

23. Having regard to the submissions made, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the case of applicant no. 1, namely, Shahzada Amiq Hussain, warrants consideration by the respondents/competent authority in light of the observations made in the judgments mentioned above, particularly Bodu Singh v. State of Rajasthan as also Ram Bhan Singh Bhadoriya v. State of M.P., having regard to the fact that he is due to superannuate within a year and would be required to prepare his pension papers. This aspect also assumes importance in view of the respondents’ own stand, where they have categorically mentioned in their response about two officials who are retained near their hometown, as they are to superannuate within

ABHISHEK PUNIA

three or four months.

24. As regards the remaining applicants no. 2 to 5, this Tribunal finds no merits in their case, as the Administrative Department/competent authority has to address the pressing operational deficiencies in Jammu Division. Therefore, there appears no sufficient ground to interfere in the administrative matter as regards the postings of other remaining applicants no. 2 to 5.

25. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant no. 1 strictly in terms of the observation made above as also the law cited above in various judicial pronouncements, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks positively. Any delay in passing of the order within the stipulated period shall be attributable to the respondents.

26. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1110/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

27. No order as to costs.

(M.S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master

ABHISHEK PUNIA