Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 610 (JK)

Mohd. Waseem Khan v. State of J&K Kashmir

2016-11-24

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR, J. 1. Through the instant writ petition, petitioner challenges the impugned communication dated 06.09.2013, issued by Tehsildar, Jammu, whereby Naib Tehsildar, Bhalwal, has been directed to take charge from the petitioner and handover the same to respondent No.6. 2. Petitioner is serving as Patwari. He came to be transferred from Village Chinore to P/H Ploura-III vide order dated 20.12.2012 (Annexure-'A'). It is stated that vide order dated 04.09.2013 transfer orders were issued in respect of 25 Patwaries of different Districts. According to the writ petitioner, in the transfer order dated 04.09.2013 no one has been posted in Patwar Haiqa Pioura-III where the petitioner is posted since December 2012 and there is nothing to show that there is a post available in Patwar Haiqa Ploura-III. 3. The case of the petitioner is that earlier he was working in Village Chinore and vide order dated 20.12.2012 he was transferred to P.H. Ploura-III and while he was serving there, another transfer order came to be issued on 04.09.2013 (Annexure-'B') wherein 25 Patwaries of different districts were transferred. The name of the petitioner did not find place in the subsequent transfer order dated 04.09.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that suddenly on 06.09.2013 a direction was issued by Tehsildar Jammu to the Naib Tehsildar, Bhalwal to take charge from the petitioner and handover the same to respondent No. 6. The communication issued by respondent No. 5-Tehsildar Jammu, according to the petitioner, is contrary to transfer order dated 04.09.2013 issued by the Government. It is stated that there is arbitrariness in the impugned communication dated 06.09.2013. 4. In the instant writ petition, this Court was inclined to pass following interim order on 12.09.2013:- "CMP No. 2822/2013 Government Order No. SOJ/Esstt/N/12/1225-29 dated 20.12.2012 would show that petitioner-Mohd Wasim Khan by virtue of the said order has been posted as Patwari for patwar Halqa Paloura-III. Government order No. Rev/NG/228 of 2013 dated 04.09.2013 would show that by virtue of the said order neither the petitioner has been transferred from the said halqa nor someone else has been posted there. Petitioner's apprehension is that pursuant to Tehsildar, Jammu's letter dated 06.09.2013, he is being compelled to handover the charge of Patwar Haiqa Paloura-III to respondent No. 6 under the garb of Government order dated 04.09.2013. Heard. Considered. Notice as above. Petitioner's apprehension is that pursuant to Tehsildar, Jammu's letter dated 06.09.2013, he is being compelled to handover the charge of Patwar Haiqa Paloura-III to respondent No. 6 under the garb of Government order dated 04.09.2013. Heard. Considered. Notice as above. In the meanwhile, as ad interim measure and subject to objections front other side, petitioner may not be disturbed from Patwar Haiqa Paloura-HI under the garb of order dated 04.09.2013." 5. The above said order passed by this Court continues to be in force. It is also plea of the petitioner that he has been posted as Patwari in P/H/ Ploura-II on 20.12.2012 and within eight months the impugned communication dated 06.09.2013 came to be passed by the Tehsildar, Jammu, disturbing his position before completion of two years. 6. Be that as it may, by efflux of time, two years period is already over. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be placed in the same place forever. This will be contrary to the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in Syed Hilal Ahmad and ors v. State of J&K and ors, 2015 (3) JKJ 398 (HC). In view of the above said Judgment, it would not be proper to permit the petitioner to continue in the same place based on interim orders. 7. In such view of the matter, writ petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the competent authority requesting for posting at an appropriate place, which request may be considered on its own merit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the representation. 8. Writ petition disposed of as above along with connected MP. 9. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.