Irshad Ahmad Tramboo vs Union Of India & Ors.

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral

01/ Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief :

Chief Engineer 31-Zone Srinagar.”

02/ What emerges from the pleadings in this petition is that applicant is aggrieved of the posting/transfer order bearing Order No. 41623/posting/Gp-1/E1C(1) dated 10-06-2026 whereby the applicant has been transferred from Headquarters Chief Engineer 31 Zone, Srinagar, to Headquarters CWS Jammu. The applicant is further aggrieved of a communication dated 18-08-2026, whereby his representation dated 05-03-2026, seeking cancellation of transfer/posting and retention at the present station, has not been acceded to. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents in treating the applicant as eligible for posting him to a junior station complex despite he having crossed the age of 55 years and despite the specific provision of exemption contained in the applicable posting/transfer guidelines is bad in law.

03/ Learned counsel submits that the applicant is holding the post of Assistant Administrative Officer (AAO), in the Military Engineering Services (MES) and is presently posted at Headquarter Chief Engineer 31 Zone, Srinagar. She submits that MES is an organization consisting of technical officers of Army and civilian technical officers, both gazetted and non gazetted officials, created by Government of India for rendering Engineering services to the

entire Army all over the country by way of providing engineering service, be it Civil or Mechanical etc. Learned counsel further submitted that the MES is spread over all country along with the Army areas and the country has five commands having their respective areas of command in control and it has divided responsibilities for providing Engineering Services among five commands headed by Chief Engineer to each command.

04/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, in terms of order dated 10-06-2026, under the Heading Bulk Posting/Transfer (Subordinate Staff), was transferred from HQ CE 31 Zone to HQ CWE, Jammu, and the petitioner, who figures at S.No. 2.8 in the order, was to join the new place of posting by 09-07-2026. The petitioner, on issuance of the order impugned, moved detailed representation on 15-06-2026 before the respondents, highlighting therein the policy/guidelines as also the recommendation made by the ADM Office, Director, P&L, CE-31 Zone, to post the petitioner at HCE 31 Zone, Srinagar, but the competent authority rejected the representation of the petitioner in terms of order dated 18-08-2026, which too is under challenge through the petition on hand.

05/ Challenge is thrown to both the orders, i.e. order of transfer

and the order of rejection of representation, on various grounds as are urged in the petition. However, the star ground raised by the petitioner is that the order of transfer is bad as the same is against the transfer/posting policy, to which reference is made to paragraph (7) of the amended policy as also clause (xi), wherein, learned counsel submits that since the petitioner is presently about 56 years of age, as such, he cannot be transferred to Jammu. Learned counsel further submits that the competent authority, while disposing the representation of the petitioner, has not assigned any reason for rejection as the reason is the heart and soul of every administrative action and the order of rejection, lacking reason, cannot be countenanced by law.

06/ Admittedly, transfer is an exigency of service, in which an employee has no right to seek a place/posting of his choice. It is always left to the competent authority to post an employee in the best public and administrative interest and once an employee accepts the terms and conditions of employment, he/she cannot deviate thereafter from such conditions. To this effect I am fortified by a catenae of judgements delivered by the apex court in cases titled as Shilpi Bose and others versus State of Bihar and others, 1991,

Suppl (2) SCC 659, Union of India and others versus S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Union of India and others versus Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304.

07/ Learned counsel, while strengthening her argument, submitted that there is no dispute to the proposition of law supra that transfer is an exigency of service, however, at the same time, every transfer is to be guided by the policy and the guidelines governing such transfers and there can be no deviation, for, such policies/guidelines are enacted only to streamline the process of transfers. Learned counsel submitted that it should be the endeavor of every employer, being the first responder, to address to the genuine grievances of an employee. She submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner approached the competent authority by way of representation, quoting therein the policy and guidelines governing the transfers, which, however, has been rejected by the respondents by way of cryptic and non speaking order. She further submits that it was incumbent upon the competent authority to consider the representation even on humanitarian ground. However, the invocation of humanitarian ground, as projected by the petitioner in the representation, did not prevail upon the competent authority. She submits that it was well within the powers of the competent

authority to adhere to the policy and guidelines governing such transfers.

08/ Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, vehemently opposed the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has no right to be placed at a place of his choice and transfer being an exigency, the petitioner is bound to adhere to the order of transfer.

09/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the contents urged in the petition. At the request, this O.A is taken up for final disposal at this very stage by providing that the petitioner will move a fresh representation before the competent authority within a week’s time positively, pleading therein the guidelines and transfer policy, reference of which has been made in annexure –II to the O.A. On needful being done, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner on its merits, keeping in view the policy and guidelines aforesaid, within a period of four weeks thereafter and for four weeks, the present position of the petitioner shall not be disturbed.

10/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this O.A 959/2026 is disposed of along with connected M.As, if any.