Vikram Jeet vs State Of J&K And Others

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to extend the period of his deputation at the present place of

posting in the office of the Chief Horticulture Officer, Kathua. The prayer is on the ground that his father is not keeping good health and he has to

take care of by him.

Notice in the petition was issued on 13.02.2019 and the Court passed the following order:

“The petitioner’s case is that on account of his father’s health, who was suffering from prostrate cancer, his case for inter-cadre transfer

was considered and vide order dated 14.02.2019 the petitioner was transferred to the office of Chief Horticulture Officer, Kathua for a period of one

year and further that on completion of the aforesaid period the official would be deemed to have been repatriated to his parent cadre. Learned counsel

for the petitioner urged that the reasons for transfer of the petitioner have not ceased and that a request has since been made on 09.01.2019 for

extension of his period of stay at Kathua.

Notice in the main as also in IA, returnable within three weeks.

List again on 20.03.2019.

Meanwhile, subject to objections and till next date of hearing before the Bench, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his

present place of posting. However, it shall be open to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner filed by him with regard to

extension of his period at Chief Horticulture Office, Kathua.â€​

The petitioner was posted at the new place vide Government Order No. 13-Horti of 2018 dated 14.02.2018 issued by the respondent No. 1.

Thereafter the representation of the petitioner was considered and vide order dated 28.05.2019 and the same stands rejected. Consequent thereto, the

petitioner filed CM No. 942/2020 seeking to amend the present petition.

Considering the fact that the order sought to be impugned in the amended petition was passed during the pendency of the present writ petition in this

Court and in terms of the interim order passed therein, the application is allowed. The accompanying amended petition is taken on record.

To challenge the order dated 28.05.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner is still not well as he requires

regular care. His period of deputation may be extended further. He further submitted that impugned order cannot be legally sustained as reference

therein has been made to the transfer policy dated 23.11.2009, whereas the same stood superseded by the policy dated 28.07.2010.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a district cadre post. It was as a matter of

concession that he was sent on deputation for a period of one year to the office of Chief Horticulture Officer, Kathua. The order dated 14.02.2018

suggests that immediately after the aforesaid period was over, he shall be deemed to be repatriated and relieved to his parent cadre. Petitioner

continued on the post for a period of about one year more, on account of interim stay granted by this Court. He cannot be allowed to continue for

indefinite period. An employee appointed on a district cadre post cannot be transferred outside the district.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The fact that the petitioner was appointed on a district cadre post as Gardner in district Anantnag, is not in dispute. On his request, he was

transferred to Kathua for a period of one year vide order dated 14.02.2018. Before that period could expire, the petitioner approached this Court and

vide order dated 13.02.2019, he was allowed to continue at the same place. The official respondents were directed to consider the representation filed

by the petitioner. The same was considered and rejected vide order dated 28.05.2019. The reason assigned is that the petitioner belongs to a district

cadre, hence, he could not be transferred outside his cadre.

On his request, he was sent on deputation for a period of one year. However, he has already availed of the benefit of inter cadre transfer for a

period of two years. This Court has full sympathy with the petitioner as far as his zeal to take care of his father, who is not keeping well, but his

deputation cannot be continued for indefinite period.

I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 vide which the request of the petitioner for extension of deputation

period has been rejected. However, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding mentioning of a policy which had already

been superseded by another policy needs to be noticed. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the order dated 28.05.2019, Circular

dated 23.11.2009 had been mentioned regarding transfers of employees whereas the same stood superseded by Government Order No. 861-GAD of

2010 dated 28.07.2010.

In case it is so, it is required that officers, who had signed the order should have been careful regarding mentioning of the instructions on the

subject, which are applicable on the date and not which already stood superseded.

For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.