Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Darshana Devi vs State Of J&K & Ors on 6 October, 2016
Author: Ramalingam Sudhakar
Bench: Ramalingam Sudhakar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU SWP No. 592 OF 2014 Darshana Devi Petitioners State of J&K & ors Respondent !None. ^Ms. Mehvish Shah, DyAG Honble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Judge Date: 06.10.2016 :J U D G M E N T :
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner, working as Senior Assistant in pay scale of 4000-6000 seeks following relief(s)
i) writ of certiorari quashing the Government order NO. 17, Dated 22.01.2014 as issued by the respondent No. 3 by virtue of which petitioner is transferred out to te High Court Depot vice Respondent No. 4 in clear contravention to earlier passed order NO. 249 dt. 8.12.2012 and SRO 272 of September 2008.
ii) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow in letter and spirit earlier passed order No. 249 dt. 8.12.2012 and mandate of SRO 272 of September 2008 insofar as adjustment of petitioner as Incharge Head Assistant in her own pay and grand is concerned.
iii) To provide suitable adjustment of petitioner as Head Assistant in term of SRO 272 of September 2008 & office order No. 249 dated 08.12.2012 by virtue of which the petitioner being most Senior Assistant is to be placed as 2 In charge Head Assistant in her own pay and grand in place of respondent No. 5 And
iv) Issuance of any other appropriate, writ, command direction or orders as this Honble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The writ petition is admitted. Post admission notice.
3. Ms. Mehvish Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Objections have not been filed.
4. The preliminary contention raised in the writ petition by the petitioner is that order passed by General Manager, Ranbir Govt. Press, Jammu ordering her transfer and adjustment other than as already directed vide previous order dated 08.12.2012 is illegal, unwarranted and violative of SRO 272 of September 2008.
5. The Court while showing indulgence stayed the operation of order dated 22.01.2014 to the extent of petitioner and since then the petitioner is continuing at her place.
6. At this stage, Ms. Mehvish, Deputy Advocate General states that the petitioner has served more than two years in one place by virtue of interim order and now she cannot continue in the said post based on an interim order of the Court.
7. Be that as it may, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has served more than two years at the same place and she cannot continue for ever. This is moreso in view of the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in case titled Syed Hilal Ahmad & ors. vs. State of J&K & ors. decided on 31.08.2015 reported in 2015 (3) JKJ 398 (HC), where this Court has already held that the transfer is an exigency 3 of service and, therefore, by virtue of an interim order, petitioner cannot seek to continue forever.
8. In such view of the matter, if the petitioner has not been transferred to any other post in the meanwhile, and if she continues the same position by virtue of the interim order, she is at liberty to make representation to the authority concerned for placing her at the appropriate place as per the transfer policy. Such representation should be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The authority concerned shall take a decision in this matter preferable within four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the status of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.
8. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu:
06.10.20161. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner, working as Senior Assistant in pay scale of 4000-6000 seeks following relief(s)
i) writ of certiorari quashing the Government order NO. 17, Dated 22.01.2014 as issued by the respondent No. 3 by virtue of which petitioner is transferred out to te High Court Depot vice Respondent No. 4 in clear contravention to earlier passed order NO. 249 dt. 8.12.2012 and SRO 272 of September 2008.
ii) Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow in letter and spirit earlier passed order No. 249 dt. 8.12.2012 and mandate of SRO 272 of September 2008 insofar as adjustment of petitioner as Incharge Head Assistant in her own pay and grand is concerned.
iii) To provide suitable adjustment of petitioner as Head Assistant in term of SRO 272 of September 2008 & office order No. 249 dated 08.12.2012 by virtue of which the petitioner being most Senior Assistant is to be placed as 2 In charge Head Assistant in her own pay and grand in place of respondent No. 5 And
iv) Issuance of any other appropriate, writ, command direction or orders as this Honble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The writ petition is admitted. Post admission notice.
3. Ms. Mehvish Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Objections have not been filed.
4. The preliminary contention raised in the writ petition by the petitioner is that order passed by General Manager, Ranbir Govt. Press, Jammu ordering her transfer and adjustment other than as already directed vide previous order dated 08.12.2012 is illegal, unwarranted and violative of SRO 272 of September 2008.
5. The Court while showing indulgence stayed the operation of order dated 22.01.2014 to the extent of petitioner and since then the petitioner is continuing at her place.
6. At this stage, Ms. Mehvish, Deputy Advocate General states that the petitioner has served more than two years in one place by virtue of interim order and now she cannot continue in the said post based on an interim order of the Court.
7. Be that as it may, by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has served more than two years at the same place and she cannot continue for ever. This is moreso in view of the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in case titled Syed Hilal Ahmad & ors. vs. State of J&K & ors. decided on 31.08.2015 reported in 2015 (3) JKJ 398 (HC), where this Court has already held that the transfer is an exigency 3 of service and, therefore, by virtue of an interim order, petitioner cannot seek to continue forever.
8. In such view of the matter, if the petitioner has not been transferred to any other post in the meanwhile, and if she continues the same position by virtue of the interim order, she is at liberty to make representation to the authority concerned for placing her at the appropriate place as per the transfer policy. Such representation should be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The authority concerned shall take a decision in this matter preferable within four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the status of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.
8. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( Ramalingam Sudhakar) Judge Jammu:
06.10.2016