Central Administrative Tribunal
MOHD FAROOQ DHOBI vs DEFENCE on 4 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 17
O.A./1241/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ TRANSFER/POSTING ]
Court No.: 2
No of Adjournment:
Order Dated: 04/11/2026
MOHD FAROOQ DHOBI
Vs
DEFENCE
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. AYAZ GUL
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. FURKAN YAQUB SOFI, GA VICE MR. MUDASSIR
MALIK, CGC
Order of The Tribunal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicants, 02 (two) in number, have filed the instant O.A. Since the cause of action and reliefs claimed by all the applicants are identical, the M.A. for joint application under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is allowed
2. Through the medium of the instant O.A., the applicants seek the following reliefs:
1. To allow this Original Application and set aside the impugned orders bearing No. B/66237/Bilal/EME Civ (C-3) dated: 23 Sep 2026 and the order No. B/66237/MD Farooq /EME Civ (C-3) dated: 23 Sep 2026 on the basis of arbitrary and legal unsustainable speaking order and direct the respondents to post the applicants at Srinagar, Pattan or Budgam on health grounds.
2. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. What emerges from the pleadings made is that the applicants are working as Surplus MTS Messengers Class IV employees in the respondent department, who prior to the filing of the instant O.A. had preferred an O.A./659/2026 which came to be disposed of on 26.05.2026, wherein the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 05.03.2024, as having lost their efficacy by efflux of time and by relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench.
4. Perusal of the judgment dated 26.05.2026 reveals that the respondents were left free to post the employees at any place in the exigency of service, however, while doing so, they must comply with the Statutes and the Rules governing such transfers.
5. The applicants have challenged the communication dated 03.10.2026 by virtue of which the applicants have been directed to report to the new station as per the earlier posting order dated 05.03.2024, which stands already quashed by the Court vide its above referred judgment in the earlier O.A. The order impugned has been challenged on various grounds as have been urged in the O.A.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ayaz Gul, has referred to the SOP dated 14.09.2020 on 'Reporting of Surpluses/deficiencies and submission of applications for posting/transfer on compassionate grounds/mutual basis consequent to revision of Army Order 22/2001'. He has referred to Steps 1 to 6 in respect of his arguments. He submits that the order impugned yet again is in absolute disregard and violation to the SOPs quoted above dated 14.09.2020. He further submits that the respondents were bound by the SOPs. To this effect, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as S. K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw SC 266.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants have already filed detailed representation before the competent authority projecting their grievances which has not been disposed of as of now.
8. Undoubtedly, transfer is an exigency of service and it is left to the domain of the competent authority, but at the same time, the competent authority are governed by the SOPs attached to such transfers which have to be adhered to and as has been laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court quoted above.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned is also bad in law, as once the same order was quashed, the order impugned could have not been passed, as once the same was quashed, it was deemed to be not in existence.
10. Heard.
11. Issue notice. Mr. Furkan Yaqub Sofi, learned GA vice Mr. Mudassir Malik, learned CGC, appears and accepts notices for the respondents, who is granted four weeks' time to file his response. In the meantime, subject to objections of the other side, the respondents shall consider and pass speaking orders on the representation filed by the applicants in accordance with law and the SOPs as quoted above. Further, for three weeks, the present position of the applicants shall not be disturbed. It is made clear that it shall be the duty and responsiblity of the competent authority to decide the representation within the aforesaid period and any delay shall be attibutable to the respondents.
12. Alteration/modification on motion.
13. List on 16.12.2026. M. S. Latif Member (J)
Abhishek Punia ( court master )