GHULAM MOHAMMAD TANTRAY vs SOCIAL WELFARE 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:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

a. Issue an appropriate order or direction quashing and setting aside Government Order No. 166-JK(SWD)of 2026 dated 28.10.2026, whereby the applicant has been attached to the office of the Director, Social Welfare, Jammu, with immediate effect and until further orders.

b. Issue an appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents to permit the applicant to continue at his existing place of posting at Srinagar for the remaining period of his service until his superannuation on 31.12.2026.

c. Issue an appropriate order or direction commanding the respondents to ensure that the applicant's pension papers, service records and other requisite documents are duly prepared, verified and submitted to the competent authority within the prescribed time, so that his pensionary and other retiral benefits are not delayed or prejudiced on account of the impugned order.

d. Direct the respondents to produce the relevant record, including the complaint, if any, forming the basis of the impugned order, and to disclose the reasons and administrative circumstances which necessitated the attachment of the applicant to Jammu when he is due to retire on 31.12.2026.

e. Pass any other or further order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, proper and expedient in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is presently working as a Section Officer in the office of the Director, Social

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Welfare Department, Kashmir, Srinagar. He was appointed in Government service in 1987 and, through career progression, rose from the post of Class-IV employee to Section Officer with an unblemished service record and is due to retire on superannuation on 31.12.2026.

3. It is stated that respondent no. 1, vide Government Order No. 166-JK(SWD) of 2026 dated 28.10.2026, attached the Applicant to the office of the Director, Social Welfare, Jammu, with immediate effect and until further orders. The applicant challenges the said order on the ground that, with barely 02 (two) months remaining before his retirement, the attachment would cause grave prejudice to the applicant, the timely processing and settlement of his pension papers and other retiral benefits. It is added that no apparent administrative necessity has been disclosed to justify the abrupt attachment at the fag end of his service career.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned attachment is punitive in substance and is related to the placement of certain officials against promotional posts of Tehsil

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Social Welfare Officer pursuant to an order dated 24.10.2026. He submits that the applicant had no authority to grant promotions, determine the eligibility of officials, or decide their postings, as such matters fell within the domain of the competent authorities. Being associated with the establishment section, his role, at most, was limited to processing or submitting the relevant papers before the competent authority. He further submits that the legality of the promotion and placement order, which is stated to be under challenge before the competent judicial forum, cannot by itself justify adverse action against him without establishing any specific misconduct attributable to him.

5. It is further submitted that the respondents failed to consider his long and unblemished service, his impending retirement, and his limited role in the matters relating to the promotions in question. It is added that the impugned order would adversely affects his legitimate service interests and may impede the timely settlement of his retiral benefits. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs while relying on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

6. 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;

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;

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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

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

7. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to buttress his arguments submits 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 Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case titled as Bodu Singh v. State of

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Rajasthan (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”.

8. This Tribunal would also like to remind the respondents as regards the law laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the 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”.

9. Even otherwise the applicant deserves humanitarian view in light of the fact that he is superannuating within two months. To this effect, I am also fortified by the judgments titled as:

ABHISHEK PUNIA

1. Home Secretary, U.T. of Chandigarh v. Darshjit Singh 1993 (4) SCC 25 &

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

10. Heard.

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

12. Having regard to the submissions made coupled with the perusal of the contents of the O.A., the respondents are directed to treat this O.A. as a representation, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicant as regards his posting nearer to his hometown Srinagar. The respondents, while deciding the case of the applicant, shall keep in view the law cited above in various judicial pronouncements, in light of the fact that the applicant is due to superannuate within two months and he has to prepare his pension papers. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders strictly within a period of 02 (two) weeks from today positively. Further, for two weeks, the Order impugned dated 28.10.2026, as it relates to the applicant, shall not be given effect to. It is made clear that the respondents shall decide the case of the applicant expeditiously and any delay shall be attributable to the

ABHISHEK PUNIA

respondents.

13. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1207/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

14. No order as to costs.

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

Abhishek Punia Court Master 29.10.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA