CAT directs authorities to decide migrant employee’s transfer representation within three weeks

22/08/2026

SRINAGAR, Aug 21: The Srinagar Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Jammu and Kashmir authorities to consider and decide on merits, within three weeks, the representation of a Labour Officer appointed under the Prime Minister's Special Package Scheme, who had challenged her transfer from Kulgam to Ganderbal.
The direction was passed by M.S. Latif, Member (Judicial), while disposing of O.A. No. 912/2026 filed by Beauty Hassan against the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and other authorities. The order was pronounced on August 20, 2026.
Hassan was represented by Suhaib F. Bandey, Advocate, while the respondents were represented by Syed Musaib, Deputy Advocate General.
The applicant had challenged Order No. 180-LC of 2026 dated June 15, 2026, whereby she was transferred from Kulgam and posted as Labour Officer, Ganderbal, Circle-II, against an available vacancy.
She sought quashing of the transfer order insofar as it related to her and requested that she either be permitted to continue at Kulgam or be posted at a secure place in the vicinity, including Shopian, after considering her security concerns and medical conditions. She also relied upon a government decision concerning the Prime Minister's package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants to the Kashmir Valley.
According to the order, Hassan had been appointed as Labour Officer in 2020 under the Prime Minister's Special Package Scheme. She was initially posted at Budgam and was subsequently transferred to Kulgam on her request, where she continued to discharge her duties until the June 15 transfer order.
The Tribunal noted that she had already joined at Ganderbal pursuant to the impugned transfer order and was discharging her duties there.
The applicant's counsel submitted that she had joined the new place of posting under compulsion and protest. The Tribunal, however, noted that this claim had not been substantiated beyond an averment made in the original application.
Appearing for the respondents through virtual mode, Deputy AG Syed Musaib submitted that once the applicant had joined at the transferred place, the transfer order stood executed and she had continued to work there before filing the application.
The Tribunal observed that transfer is an exigency of service and that an employee does not have a right to insist upon a posting of his or her choice. It held that courts cannot substitute their own choice of posting for that of the competent authority merely because another arrangement may be preferable from the employee's perspective.
The Tribunal relied upon a series of Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Namrata Verma v. State of U.P., E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, among others.
The Tribunal also referred to U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, besides decisions of the Chhattisgarh High Court, observing that an employee aggrieved by a transfer order cannot arbitrarily refuse to comply with it and thereafter seek its quashing after joining at the transferred place.
It held that once a transfer order has been executed, it ceases to have operative effect and the appropriate remedy would lie in seeking fresh or appropriate orders rather than challenging an already executed transfer order.
Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to grant the applicant's prayer for quashing the transfer order.
However, it took note of the applicant's concern regarding her life and liberty and observed that, in the circumstances of the case, the State has a duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the life and liberty of every citizen or individual.
The Tribunal further noted that the applicant had already submitted a detailed representation before the competent authority and that the representation had not been considered on its merits.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, the Tribunal noted that preservation of family life is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
It observed that the competent authority was not powerless to review the transfer order, particularly in view of the circumstances placed before the Tribunal, the submissions of counsel and the decision of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, if still in force, along with any recommendations made in the matter.
The Tribunal consequently disposed of the original application with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations submitted by the applicant, stated to be placed at pages 51 to 54 of the application, on their merits and in accordance with law.
While doing so, the authorities have been directed to give due regard to the decision of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, and other relevant circumstances of the case. The Tribunal directed that the exercise be completed within three weeks.
It further expected the respondents to make every endeavour to dispose of the representation within the stipulated period and report compliance to the Tribunal. The Registry was directed to list the matter for compliance immediately after three weeks.
With these directions, O.A. No. 912/2026 was disposed of along with any connected miscellaneous applications.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty