Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 720 (JK)

Mohd Ayaz Khan v. State

2017-08-23

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Appeal is admitted to hearing. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the mater is heard finally. 2. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide order dated 21.09.20015. Vide order dated 17.02.2017, the appellant was transferred from RIIC, Jammu to PHE Rural Division, Jammu. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.06.2017, the appellant was again transferred from PHE Division Rural Jammu to Mahore Irrigation Division Dharmari. The appellant complied with the aforesaid order, however, within a short span of one month, he was again transferred from Hyd Division Dharmari to Hyd. Division, Kishtwar. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.08.2017 dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that the order of transfer of the appellant has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provision, nor it suffers from the vice of mala fide. 4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that within a period of one month, the appellant has been transferred and nobody has been posted in his place. It is further submitted that the appellant be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu, respondent No. 2 and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider and decide the representation by a speaking order in a time bound manner and till than the appellant be permitted to continue at his present place of posting as nobody has been posted in his place. On the other hand, learned Dy. AG submits that the order of transfer of the petitioner has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provision, nor it suffers from the vice of mala fide, therefore, no interference is called for. However, it is submitted that in case the appellant submits representation to the competent authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. However, it is submitted that in case the appellant submits representation to the competent authority, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct that in case the appellant files representation with regard to his grievance to the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu- respondent No. 2 within a period of one week from today, the aforesaid authority shall decide the representation as shall be filed by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt such representation. Taking into account the fact that nobody is posted in place of the appellant, the appellant shall be allowed to continue at Hyd. Division, Dharmari till representation is decided by the respondents. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 6. To the aforesaid extent, order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.