Public servant Deepak Chand approached the High Court challenging his transfer and relieving orders, claiming inconsistency with civil service rules. The Court noted the matter had lapsed and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed as nothing survived in it after a lapse of time.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Serial No. 203
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
SWP No. 589/2015 (O & M)
Deepak Chand …Petitioner(s)
Through:-None.
v/s
State of J&K and others ….Respondent(s)
Through:- None.
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
ORDER
The petitioner approached this Court impugning the order of his
transfer dated 16.01.2015 and also the order of his relieving dated 24.02.2015.
While issuing notice on 27.02.2015, this Court passed the
following order:-
“ SWP No. 589/2015 (Fresh)
Notice to respondents returnable within three weeks.
Requisites for service within one week.
List in week commencing March 23, 2015.
CMA No. 703/2015
Petitioner a Driver appointed against the District Cadre Post
Udhampur was earlier transferred to another District which was challenged by medium of SWP No. 1121/2012. The order was stayed and finally the petition was disposed of leaving it open to the respondentsauthorities to transfer the petitioner in accordance with the Rules within the District.
2 SWP No. 589/2015
Now the petitioner has been transferred and adjusted in Elect. And Maintenance & RE Division Batote. Executive Engineer Elect. Maintt. & R. E. Division Udhampur has relieved him on 24.02.2015 which according to learned counsel is inconsistent with Rule 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (decentralization and recruitment Rules), 2010.
Considered.
Notice for objections. Meanwhile, operation of the order of transfer dated 16.01.2015 followed by relieving order of the petitioner shall remain in abeyance, if not already carried into effect.”
A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that earlier also the petitioner had challenged his transfer by filing the SWP No. 1121/2012, which was disposed of.
In the light of the interim order passed on 27.02.2015, the petitioner must be working at his present place of posting. The Government employee cannot be allowed to work at the same place in view of interim order passed by this Court, as the Government is fully authorized to utilize the services of an employee at a place it is required.
With the lapse of time, nothing survives in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the respondent No. 4 by the Registry of this Court.
Jammu 01.06.2020 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
PAWAN ANGOTRA 2020.06.08 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's dismissal after the lapse of time regarding a transfer and relieving order which was already under interim stay is maintainable.
Whether the Government can utilize an employee's services at a changed place of posting despite a stay order.
Deepak Chand
State of J&K
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
