| Transferable employee has no right to serve with choice of place, tenure: DB | | | Early Times Report
SRINAGAR, Nov 5: A Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Rashid Ali Dar holds that transfer is an exigency of service and it is the prerogative of the employer to see as to at what place the services of an employee can be best utilized in the larger public interest. An employee, holding a transferable post, has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a particular place for a particular period.
This significant judgment has been passed in a LPA filed by Mohammad Maqbool Shah challenging the order dated October 25, 2019 passed by the Single Judge in writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 3119/2019, in terms whereof, the petition of the appellant/writ petitioner was dismissed.
Appellant/writ petitioner has questioned the order impugned, amongst other grounds, on the ground that the order of the writ court is bad in law because the writ court has not appreciated that the order of transfer of the appellant/writ petitioner, impugned before the writ court, has neither been issued for public interest nor in the interest of the department. It is stated that the appellant/writ petitioner was earlier transferred at his present place of posting in terms of order dated 21.01.2019 and only after 8 months, in terms of the impugned order before the writ court, was again transferred, on the ground of smooth functioning and public interest, thereby rendering the order of transfer of the appellant/writ petitioner as premature. The appellant has also challenged the order impugned in the instant appeal on the ground that he going to retire after 6 months on attaining the age of superannuation, as such, the interest of justice demands that he may be allowed to retire from his present place, so that he would not suffer because he had already submitted the necessary documents for preparation of his pension book. This fact, as per the appellant/writ petitioner, was not appreciated by the writ court, therefore, the order of the writ court deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
The Full Bench of this Court, while reiterating the observations of the Supreme Court, has also held that the Executive instructions/Government orders are subject to statutory rules.
With these observations, Division Bench holds that this appeal is found to be meritless and, as such, same shall stand dismissed. -JNF |
|
