Manzoor Ahmad Naikoo vs HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT on 29 October 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

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

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:

a. Quash the impugned Order No. CE/UEED/117 of 2026 dated 26.09.2026, issued by Respondent No. 2 under endorsement No. CE/UEED/CC/2757-71 dated 26.09.2026, in so far as it relates to the Applicant (S.No. 11 thereof);

b. Quash letter No. CE/UEED/Estt/3094-97 dated 19.10.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2, explanation call No. UEED/Camp/Spn/68-70 dated 21.10.2026 and letter No. UEED/Spn/78-80 dated 27.10.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4, and all proceedings taken or to be taken in pursuance thereof, and restrain the respondents from initiating or continuing any disciplinary action against the Applicant on account of his representation dated 16.10.2026 or of any reply submitted by him in that behalf;

c. Direct the respondents to post the Applicant back to the office of Respondent No. 5 against the post of Orderly held by him in the District Cadre of District Srinagar, with his attendance marked and salary drawn there, and not to transfer, adjust, attach or otherwise post him to any Division or office where no post of Orderly is sanctioned;

d. Direct the respondents to produce the record of the impugned order, the letter No. CE/UEED/Estt/3094-97 dated 19.10.2026 and the record relating to the impugned communications, together with the record showing the Division-wise allocation of the sanctioned posts of Orderly (MTS) after Government Order No. 29-JK(HUD) of 2026; and

ABHISHE K PUNIA

e. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with costs.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant has been serving as an Orderly in the Urban Environmental Engineering Department (UEED), Jammu and Kashmir, since 18.08.1997 and is borne on the District Cadre of District Srinagar. The Tentative Seniority List issued vide Order dated 26.09.2023, reflects him at serial no. 17 (Orderlies) which also records his D.O.B. as 01.04.1974 and appointment date. Prior to the impugned order, he was posted in the office of the Executive Engineer, Sewerage & Drainage Division- I, Srinagar. As stated, the post of Orderly (MTS), carrying Pay Level SL-1 (₹14,800–47,100), falls within the definition of District Cadre under Section 2(b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment) Act, 2010.

3. It is stated that, pursuant to the Council of Ministers' Decision No. 121/18/2025 dated 03.12.2025, the Government, vide Order dated 05.02.2026, reorganised the Department by creating new posts and Divisions, abolishing certain posts and placing others under diminishment. Under the said reorganisation,

ABHISHE K PUNIA

08 (eight) posts of Orderly were abolished, 15 (fifteen) were placed under diminishment, and the sanctioned strength of Orderly (MTS) for the entire Department was reduced to 04 (four) posts. No post of Orderly was created or allocated to the newly constituted Divisions.

4. The applicant challenges Order No. CE/UEED/117 of 2026 dated 26.09.2026, whereby respondent no. 2 adjusted 12 (twelve) officials to various Divisions on a stop-gap basis. The applicant, figuring at Serial No. 11, was adjusted to UEED Division Kulgam- Shopiyan, which covers Districts Kulgam and Shopian. As stated, the order does not identify any sanctioned post of Orderly or vacancy against which he was adjusted, specify any administrative exigency, or prescribe the duration of the arrangement. In the meanwhile, his salary continues to be drawn by his existing Drawing and Disbursing Officer at Srinagar, and his attendance is to be certified by the concerned Executive Engineer of the new Division until the requisite DDO code is generated. It is contended that the arrangement effectively places him outside his District Cadre against no sanctioned post, while leaving his existing post at

ABHISHE K PUNIA

Srinagar exposed to being treated as vacant and allowed to lapse.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Aswar R. Attar, submits that the applicant joined at UEED Division Kulgam- Shopiyan in compliance with the impugned order, without prejudice to his rights. It is added by the applicant that the UEED Division Kulgam-Shopian is a Division constituted in the course of the re-organization, covering Districts Kulgam and Shopian, which, as the impugned order itself records, has no Drawing and Disbursing Officer code of its own. No post of Orderly is sanctioned for it.

6. On 16.10.2026, the applicant submitted a representation to respondent no. 2, with copies to respondents no. 1 and 3, seeking withdrawal of the adjustment order insofar as it related to him. He contended that no post of Orderly existed in the District Cadres of Kulgam or Shopian and requested that he be permitted to continue against his existing post at Srinagar. However, instead of deciding the representation, the respondent no. 2, vide letter dated 19.10.2026, directed initiation of disciplinary action against him for submitting the representation directly to the Chief Engineer

ABHISHE K PUNIA

without routing it through the proper official channel.

7. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 4 issued an explanation notice dated 21.10.2026, requiring the applicant to explain why his conduct should not be treated as a violation of prescribed official procedure and also directing him to furnish his work and conduct certificates for the last five years. The applicant submitted his reply on 22.10.2026, asserting that no provision of the Jammu and Kashmir Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1971, prohibited him from representing to the Head of the Department against an order affecting his service, and that the work and conduct certificates formed part of the Department's official records. He also sought a copy of the letter dated 19.10.2026.

8. Subsequently, vide letter dated 27.10.2026, respondent no. 4 reported the matter to respondent no. 3 for appropriate action, reporting that the applicant had failed to furnish a satisfactory reply. The applicant contends that the said communication misrepresented his reply and failed to address the points raised by him.

ABHISHE K PUNIA

9. It is further stated that the same adjustment order is under challenge in O.A. No. 1090/2026, titled Nasir Hussain Bhat v. U.T. of J&K and Others, wherein this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 30.09.2026, directed that the order, insofar as it related to the applicant therein, shall not be given effect. Being aggrieved by his adjustment outside his cadre against no identified sanctioned post and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings following his representation against the adjustment, the applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking appropriate reliefs.

10. Admittedly, transfer is an exigency of service and the competent authority is the best judge to post an employee in the public and administrative interest, and an employee has no right to seek a posting of his choice. It is always left to the domain of the competent authority and Courts have a very limited power to interfere in such matters. To this effect, I am fortified by a catena of judgments:

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

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

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

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

ABHISHE K PUNIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Shri Bhagwan 2008

(8) SCC 574

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABHISHE K PUNIA

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

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

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

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

11. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to buttress his arguments submits that the UEED Division Kulgam-Shopian is a Division constituted in the course of the re-organization, covering Districts Kulgam and Shopian, and as such, no post of Orderly was sanctioned for it in terms of the Council of Ministers Decision dated 03.12.2025. He further submitted that by adjusting the applicant to this new Division, he has been deprived of his due position. To this effect, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as P. K. Chinnasamy v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 601, wherein their lordships have held that an employee has to be given work commensurate to his position. As such, he submitted that the applicant, having been so attached, is deprived of being allotted work commensurate to his status.

12. Heard.

13. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the O.A.

ABHISHE K PUNIA

is taken up for its disposal.

14. The O.A. is disposed of by providing that the respondents, shall treat this O.A. as a representation along with the representation reportedly filed by the applicant dated 16.10.2026, and shall consider and decide the case of the applicant in accordance with law, keeping in view the merits of the case. The respondents, while deciding the case of the applicant, shall keep in view the law cited above by the Hon’ble Apex Court and pass appropriate orders strictly within a period of 02 (two) weeks positively. The respondents while deciding the case of the applicant shall also take note of the Council of Minister’s Decision No. 121/18/2025 dated 03.12.2025. It is also made clear that while disposing of the representation, the respondents shall accord a personal hearing to the applicant to put forth his case. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the case, and the respondents shall decide the case of the applicants strictly in accordance with the rules governing the field.

15. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1206/2026 is disposed of along with all

ABHISHE K PUNIA

connected M.A.s, if any.

16. No order as to costs.

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

Abhishek Punia Court Master 29.10.2026

ABHISHE K PUNIA