Riyaz Ahmad Sofi vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

JUSTICE RITU TAGORE, MEMBER [JUDL.]

The Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is aggrieved of the impugned order No. CF/SGR/Estt/2026/2141-42 dated 08.09.2026 issued by respondent No.2, whereby the applicant has been re-Kalantra Block of Gulmarg Range. It is submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicant was initially appointed as Forest Guard in the} respondent Department vide order dated 11.08.2007 and was subsequently promoted from time to time, including as Deputy Forester in the year 2012 and Forester in the year 2018.

It is further submitted that the applicant was earlier posted at B.O. Baderkoot and, vide order No. CF/Sgr/Estt/2026/2026/986-88 dated 29.04.2026, issued by respondent No.2, was transferred from B.O. Baderkoot to B.O. Gadkhud in accordance with the transfer policy of the Department. Learned counsel submits that thereafter, within a short span of less than five months, the applicant has again been transferred vide the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 from Gadkhud Block, Pattan Range to Kalantra Block of Gulmarg Range.

Learned counsel further submits that the respondent Department had issued order No. PCCF/NG/Estt/2593-98 dated 15.09.2023, followed by order No. 240 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023, whereby the subordinate officers were Central Administrative Tribunal^{directed to adhere to the transfer policy of the} Government of Jammu & Kashmir contained in GAD Order No. 948-JK(GAD) of 2020 dated 15.10.2020, under which transfers are ordinarily to be ordered in the first month of the financial year, i.e. in April every year, subject to the exceptions mentioned therein.

It is submitted that the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 09.09.2026 before respondent No.2 against the impugned transfer order, specifically pointing out that he had been subjected to repeated transfers within a short span of about four months and requesting reconsideration of the impugned order. However, no decision was taken on the said representation, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal.

Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been issued in violation of the applicable transfer policy and is arbitrary and unjustified. It is further submitted that the applicant has been discharging his duties with sincerity and dedication and has also raised concerns regarding the Central Administrative Tribunal^{illegal felling of forest and protection of forest land, and} that the impugned transfer is alleged to be an act of harassment and vengeance on account of the applicant having raised such concerns.

Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not in the interest of smooth administration or public welfare, but has been issued to harass the applicant. It is further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the transfer policy adopted by the Department pursuant to the Government policy and is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The applicant, therefore, seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 08.09.2026 and a direction to the respondents not to disturb his present place of posting.

However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the interests of justice would be adequately served if the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the same as a representation and Central Administrative Tribunal^{consider the applicant's grievance against the impugned} order dated 08.09.2026, including his claim that he has been subjected to repeated transfers within a short span, his contention regarding adherence to the applicable transfer policy, his representation dated 09.09.2026, and his grievance regarding the circumstances in which the impugned transfer has been ordered, together with the documents annexed to the Original Application, strictly in accordance with law and within a stipulated period.

Mr. Rais Ud Din Ganaie, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on advance notice, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present Original Application pending, particularly in view of the limited prayer made Central Administrative Tribunal^{on behalf of the applicant.}

Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant, this Tribunal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the rival claims of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat the present Original Application as a representation and accord due consideration to the applicant's grievance against the impugned order No. CF/SGR/Estt/2026/2141-42 dated 08.09.2026, including his claim regarding repeated transfers within a short span, his contention with regard to adherence to the applicable transfer policy, his representation dated 09.09.2026, and his grievance regarding the circumstances leading to the issuance of the impugned transfer order, together with the documents annexed thereto, subject to the applicant's eligibility and entitlement, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, regulations and transfer policy governing the field, and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so. Central Administrative Tribunal^{11.The respondents shall associate the applicant with the} aforesaid exercise and afford him an opportunity to place such further material or documents as he may wish to rely upon. The respondents shall thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order within a period of two (02) weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon them and communicate the order so passed to the applicant. In the meanwhile, if the applicant has not already been relieved from his present place of posting, he shall not be relieved for a period of two (02) weeks, till a decision on his representation is taken.

It is further made clear that the aforesaid interim arrangement shall not be construed as conferring any vested right upon the applicant to continue at his present place of posting at Baderkoot.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order. Central Administrative Tribunal^{14.With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application} stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Registry shall consign the record to the Record Room after due compliance.