Suriaya Saleem vs LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS on 3 November 2026

ORDER

(Oral)

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

Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicant seeks

ABHISHEK PUNIA

the following reliefs:

a. Allow this Original Application and quash the impugned Orders bearing no. 9161-JK (LD) of 2026 dated 27.07.2026 and Communication No. LAW-Estt/105/2021-10 dated 29.10.2026.

b. Direct the respondents to not depute the Applicant to Jammu with the Annual Darbar Move.

c. Any other order or direction as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. What emerges from the pleadings made in the O.A. is that the applicant is a member of the Jammu and Kashmir Legal (Gazetted) Service, governed by the Legal (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1980, as amended from time to time. The said Rules were initially notified vide SRO 214 of 1980 dated 15.04.1980 and subsequently amended vide SRO 51 of 2011 dated 04.02.2011.

3. Vide Government Order No. 1164-LD (Estt of 2011) dated 13.03.2012, the applicant herein was appointed as Legal Assistant in the respondent Law Department, and vide Government Order dated 28.12.2017, she was promoted as Assistant Legal Remembrancer on officiating basis in and subsequently confirmed

ABHISHEK PUNIA

against the said post vide Order dated 22.06.2022. She was further promoted as Deputy Legal Remembrancer in March 2024 vide Government Order dated 02.03.2024 and regularized against the said post vide Government Order dated 29.08.2025.

4. It is stated that, vide Government Order No. 3460-LD (Estt) of 2019 dated 23.10.2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Legal (Gazetted) Service and Law Officers Service was reorganized into two distinct cadres with separate seniority, whereby vide Clause 2, the Legal Gazetted Service was designated as a progressive service, whereas the Law Officers Service was declared a diminishing cadre, intended to cease to exist upon retirement, death or relinquishment of service by the last incumbent. The said reorganization was followed by SRO 967 of 2019 dated 30.10.2019.

5. The reorganization was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, in Waseem Showket Butt v. UT of J&K & Ors. (O.A. No. 754/2021 and T.A. No. 966/2020), wherein, vide judgment dated 28.08.2024, the Tribunal set aside the Government Order dated 23.10.2019 to the extent it restricted the progression of the Law Officers Service/Cadre at the level of

ABHISHEK PUNIA

Special Secretary to the Government, thereby holding that both services were to culminate at the level of Secretary to the Government, Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.

6. The applicant, being aggrieved of promotion of members belonging to the Law Officers Service, challenged their promotion to the posts of Additional Secretaries to the Government vide Government Order dated 15.07.2025, by filing O.A. No. 1250/2025, titled Suriaya Saleem v. UT of J&K & Ors., primarily contending that SRO 51 of 2011 was impliedly rescinded after the reorganization of J&K Legal Gazetted Service and Law Officers Service vide order dated 23.10.2019 to the extent of those services.

7. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, vide Government Order dated 27.07.2026, the applicant was transferred from the J&K Reconstruction Agency to the Directorate of Urdu Coordination Cell, J&K. The applicant submits that, following the reorganization of the Legal Gazetted Service and Law Officers Service in 2019, the classification of posts of the Directorate of Urdu Coordination Cell do not appear in the rules.

ABHISHEK PUNIA

She further points out that the Official Languages Cell was subsequently established in the General Administration Department vide Government Order No. 936-JK (GAD) of 2023 dated 07.08.2023.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sharaf Wani, submitted that the Government issued instructions for the Annual Darbar Move of offices from Srinagar to Jammu for the winter session 2026-27 vide Government Order No. 1664-JK (GAD) of 2026 dated 19.10.2026. The said instructions specified the offices required to move to Jammu, either ‘in full’ or ‘in camp’, and prescribed in its instruction no. 2 that offices moving in camp would carry only 33% of their staff strength or 10 officials, whichever is minimum. She further submitted that the Directorate of Urdu Coordination Cell does not figure in either of the lists appended to the said Government Order. She submitted that the respondent- Directorate does not form part of the annexed lists and submitted that vide communication dated 29.10.2026, issued by the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs through the Deputy Legal Remembrancer, the applicant, amongst

ABHISHEK PUNIA

other employees, was deputed to Jammu in connection with the Annual Darbar Move for the winter session 2026-27.

9. The applicant is, therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid deputation to Jammu and has approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate reliefs against the action of the respondents on the grounds as urged in the O.A.

10. The applicant challenges the transfer order dated 27.07.2026 and the subsequent impugned order dated 29.10.2026, primarily on the grounds that the initial transfer was made outside her cadre and against no post; the subsequent order was issued by an incompetent authority without approval of the Administrative Authority; and the Directorate was not covered under the Government Instructions dated 19.10.2026 for the functioning of camp offices at Jammu. It is further contended that the impugned order was served upon the applicant on 30.10.2026, directing her to move to Jammu by 31.10.2026, thereby providing no sufficient time to relocate and without obtaining consent from the issuing authority, administrative office or the members of the Directorate before issuance of directions to move. The applicant also submits

ABHISHEK PUNIA

that her father is suffering from multiple disc-related ailments affecting his mobility and is dependent upon her assistance, and that the Government Instructions provide preference for retention at Srinagar to women employees and employees having serious medical conditions in their families. On these grounds, the applicant seeks quashing of the impugned orders.

11. To this, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Syed Musaib, DAG, submitted that the applicant is challenging the order on flimsy grounds. He submitted that the applicant has already been working under Urdu Coordination Cell, J&K, where she has been time and again sent to Jammu by Darbar orders, and even she has drawn Darbar Allowance. To this effect, he has relied upon Government Order dated 07.10.2015 whereby the applicant was moved to Jammu during Annual Darbar Move.

12. Mr. Syed Musaib, learned DAG, further submitted that the order is passed by the competent authority where approval has been given to the order impugned and the applicant has joined the department in Jammu without any protest. To this effect, he has laid his reliance upon the Joining Report dated 28.07.2026,

ABHISHEK PUNIA

submitted by the applicant in reference to the Government Order dated 27.07.2026. He has also provided the communication no. UC/LD/Estt/2026/131 dated 22.10.2026, whereby the Director, has proposed the deputation of the applicant along with other officials to Camp Office, Jammu. The communications and the joining report, provided are made part of the O.A.

13. This Tribunal has already held that in the matters of transfer, Courts have a limited interference, and transfer is an incident of service. An employee has no right in this behalf unless the order is vitiated by any statutory violations or mala fides otherwise Courts should be reluctant in interfering with such matters, for which Courts have to be extremely circumspect. To this effect, law is already settled and reliance is laid upon the judgments titled as under:

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

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

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

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

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

ABHISHEK PUNIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation v. Shri Bhagwan 2008

ABHISHEK PUNIA

(8) SCC 574

14. However, in view of the ailment of the father of the applicant, the respondents can very well take note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case titled as S. K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 wherein their lordships have held that preservation of family life is an incident of Article 21. However, at the same time, an employee does not have an indefeasible right to claim a transfer and posting convenient to him, as such, the matters are to be left to the domain of the employer.

15. Heard.

16. The case is taken up for its disposal by directing the respondents to treat this O.A. as a representation, who shall consider and decide the case of the applicant on its merits and in accordance with law, keeping in view the rules governing the field. The respondents shall also take note of the guidelines/instructions issued vide Government Order No. 1664-JK (GAD) of 2026 dated 19.10.2026. The respondents shall conclude this exercise by passing a speaking and reasoned order within 05 (five) days from

ABHISHEK PUNIA

today. Further, for a period of 05 (five) days, the impugned order dated 29.10.2026, as it relates to the applicant, shall not be acted upon. However, after this period, this Order shall have no bearing upon the action of the respondents, but in this period, the respondents shall strictly decide the case of the applicant without any delay and any delay in deciding the case shall be attributable to the respondents.

17. Accordingly, O.A. No. 1224/2026 is disposed of along with all connected M.A.s, if any.

(Prasant Kumar) Member (Admn.) (M. S. Latif) Member (Judl.)

Abhishek Punia Court Master 03.11.2026

ABHISHEK PUNIA