Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1042 (JK)

Ashok Kumar Pargotra v. State of J&K

2018-12-28

RAJESH BINDAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2018, whereby he has been transferred from the post of Incharge Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Wing, Samba to the post of Incharge Executive Engineer, REW, Ramban. 2. Before the petitioner could file the writ petition challenging the order of transfer, apprehending the same, the department had filed caveat. A perusal of the order passed by this Court on 28.08.2018 shows that before granting interim relief to the petitioner, both the parties were heard at length. As this Court found that prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner, interim stay was also granted on 28.08.2018. Despite grant of repeated opportunities, the respondents have not filed objections. 3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he is ready to argue the case on merits without filing any objections, hence, arguments were heard for final disposal of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was posted as Incharge Executive Engineer in Rural Engineering Wing (hereinafter described as 'REW') in Rural Development Department, Bandipora. Vide order dated 29.05.2014, he was transferred from Bandipora and posted as Incharge Executive Engineer, REW, Doda against a vacant post. After merely two months, vide order dated 24.07.2014, the petitioner was attached with the office of Director Rural Development Department, Jammu. As the transfer was pre-mature, he assailed the same by filing SWP No. 2089/2014 and the order impugned was stayed by this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was thereafter disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 27.08.2015. The petitioner had merely completed one year at Doda when he was transferred to REW Division, Ramban. At Ramban, the petitioner had completed seven months, when vide order dated 09.03.2016 he was attached with the Directorate of Rural Development Department, Jammu. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.10.2017, he was posted as Incharge Executive Engineer, REW Division, Kathua. Just before two months had passed, he was transferred from Kathua to REW Division, Samba vide order dated 11.12.2017, where he joined on 12.12.2017. Less than one year thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner has again been transferred from REW Division, Samba to REW Division, Ramban. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid facts suggest that in the last about four years the petitioner has been transferred seven times. Less than one year thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2018, the petitioner has again been transferred from REW Division, Samba to REW Division, Ramban. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid facts suggest that in the last about four years the petitioner has been transferred seven times. He is due to retire in next 1-1/2 years and should not have been disturbed at this stage as he is to settle after retirement. He further submitted that the place where he has now been transferred i.e. REW Division, Ramban, the petitioner had been posted there in the year 2016 as well. On account of certain irregularities and corruption pointed out in the works being executed there, to the higher authorities the petitioner was threatened to be eliminated. He requested the District Magistrate for providing him security. Finding merit in the request of the petitioner, he was provided security. An FIR for the incident was also registered. Once the petitioner had already worked in the area where he faced threat to his life, there is no good reason to transfer him to the same place again. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not a case of frequent transfers. In 2016 the petitioner was posted at Jammu on his request because his son was not well. Hence, to claim that he was transferred from Ramban to Jammu after a short duration, is misconceived. The petitioner is working at a senior position. He should not raise the issue regarding his transfer. The Administrative Department has to see as to how the services of an employee can be best utilized. While not disputing that FIR was registered on the complaint made by the petitioner at Ramban and security was provided to him, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner can still be provided security if there is any threat to his life at Ramban. It is not a case that petitioner is retiring within next few months. He has more than one and half years still to go before he retires on attaining the age of superannuation. In fact the petitioner belongs to Jammu, that is why he wants to remain at Jammu or nearby. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 8. He has more than one and half years still to go before he retires on attaining the age of superannuation. In fact the petitioner belongs to Jammu, that is why he wants to remain at Jammu or nearby. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 8. There is no dispute on the fact that any policy framed by the State for transfer of employees is not justiciable. It is meant for administrative convenience. There had been transfers of the petitioner after short durations, however, one of them in between was on the request of the petitioner. Though no specific date of superannuation has been given in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that petitioner is due to retire in next one and a half years. Hence, it is not where he has to retire within next few months. The petitioner belongs to Jammu. He is working on a senior Class-I post i.e. Executive Engineer. He has been transferred from Samba to Ramban vide impugned order dated 16.08.2018. In my opinion, the order of transfer of the petitioner does not call for any interference, merely because he claims that in less than one year he had been transferred from Samba to Ramban. However, it needs interference only on the ground that admittedly at Ramban the petitioner faced threat to his life. He was provided security and even FIR was also registered. This fact has not been disputed. Therefore, the authorities need to re-consider the place of posting of the petitioner to a place other than Ramban. Let the needful be done positively within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till such time, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at the present place of posting. 9. It is made clear that if the order of this Court is not complied with, the Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department, may be personally responsible for non-compliance thereof. 10. A copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Secretary of the concerned Department. 11. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.