Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 110 (JK)

Ravi Kumar v. State

2018-02-27

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Going by the nature of relief sought for and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is admitted to hearing and the same is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, seeks the following relief:- “Quash and set aside the order No.DDCU/92/2017-18/3345-46 dated 11th August 2017 issued by District Development Commissioner Udhampur by virtue of which the petitioner has been transferred/deployed with the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Basantgarh and a consequent direction is issued to the Project Manager IWMP Udhampur to relieve the petitioner for reporting to SDM Basantagarh for further duties. The petitioner further seeks the quashment of order No.IWMPU/2017-18/Estt./944-46 dated 16.11.2017, issued by the Project Manager, IWMP, Udhampur whereby directing the petitioner to report to SDM Basantgarh for further duties.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 on a post created by the governing body of Drought Prone Areas Program (DPAP) held on 06.06.1994. The order of the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the District Development Commissioner, who is the Ex-Officio Chairman of DPAP Agency. Copy of the appointment order of the petitioner is dated 14.03.1995 (Annexure-C). According to the petitioner, appointment is on temporary basis and is on the basis of DPAP. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Chauffeur by order dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure-D). Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is a staff on the cadre of DPAP and is not pensionable job and, therefore, there is no question of transfer. However, the District Development Commissioner, Udhampur in his capacity as District Development Commissioner Udhampur has passed the impugned transfer order dated 1108.2017 relieving the petitioner from the office of District Development Commissioner and directed to report to Project Manager, IWMP Udhampur for further duties. According to the petitioner, he has not passed the order as Chairman of DPAP Udhampur. The impugned order (Annexure-F) dated 11.08.2017 is nonest in law. 4. In Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he has made a representation to the official respondents explaining his stand that why he should not be transferred to any other department of the Government on the plea that he is project borne employee. The impugned order (Annexure-F) dated 11.08.2017 is nonest in law. 4. In Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he has made a representation to the official respondents explaining his stand that why he should not be transferred to any other department of the Government on the plea that he is project borne employee. The representation of the petitioner (Annexure-H) dated 22.08.2017 addressed to the same authority and it has not been evoked any response forcing the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 5. Reply has not been filed till date. However, Mr. Kotwal, learned Dy.A.G. states that the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Rural Development Department/respondent No.1, who shall look into the specific grievance of the petitioner that he has been employed on project namely DPAP and non-pensionable and non-transferable post. 6. The following interim order was passed on 30.08.2017, which reads as follows:- “Petitioner claims that he was appointed in the Drought Prone Areas and Programme, which is a project funded by the Rural Development Department. It is stated that the petitioner holds a non-pensionable job in the project itself and, therefore, his services could be utilized within the project only. By virtue of order impugned dated 11.8.2017, he has now been transferred and deployed with SDM Basantgarh, which, it is stated, was impermissible in law inasmuch as only as employee on a regular post in the cadre of the revenue department could have been so transferred. Prima facie a case is made out. Issue notice in the main petition as well as MP. List in the week commencing 25.9.2017. Meanwhile, subject to objection and till next date of hearing, operation of the orders impugned dated 11.8.2017 and 16.08.2017 shall remain stayed.” 7. In the result, respondent No.1 would be the competent authority to decide the issue raised by the petitioner as a Superior authority and also the controlling authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation highlighting all these issues to respondent No.1 alongwith copy of this order on or before 09.03.2018 and respondent No.1 shall take a decision on the said representation on or before 23.03.2018. Till such time the decision is taken, the interim order issued by this Court shall continue. 8. Writ petition alongwith connected MP stands disposed of as above.