SHAMSHAD AHMAD LONE vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (TOURISM DEPARTMENT KASHMIR SRINAGAR) AND ORS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on 29.08.2026
Pronounced on 08.09.2026
Uploaded on: 08.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced: Full

WP(C) No. 222/2025



Shamshad Ahmad Lone …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


Through: Mr. Rizwan Ul Zaman, Advocate
Ms. Humera Majid, Advocate
Q
Vs


U. T. of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Mohsin Ul Showkat Qadiri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate



Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE




JUDGMENT


1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order
No. 01 of DTK-2025 dated 03.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 4, whereby
he has been transferred from the Pahalgam Development Authority to Lolab
Bangus Development Authority. A further direction has been sought for
commanding the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the
present position of the petitioner.
2. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he came to be engaged as a Daily
Wager in the Pahalgam Development Authority in the year 1993. His
services were regularized as a Helper in terms of order No. CEO/PDA/19 of
2005 dated 01.05.2005 with effect from 01.04.2001. The petitioner was
subsequently placed as Incharge Junior Assistant, and in terms of Order No.

261/PDA of 2017 dated 22.11.2017, charge allowance was sanctioned in his
favour.
3. It has been submitted that, vide Order No. 1050 of DTK dated 02.02.2017,
the respondents issued the final seniority list of Works Supervisors, Junior
Scale Works Supervisors, Plumbers, Assistant Tourist Officers, Senior
Receptionists (Executive), Receptionists (Executive), Electricians, Incharge
Electricians, Senior Grade Khansamans, Junior Grade Khansamans, Rent
Collector, Skill Lift Operators and Junior Skill Patrollers, but the name of the
petitioner was not included in the said seniority list, which prompted him to
file a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 2755/2021 before this Court, seeking
a direction upon the respondents to include his name in the final seniority
list. It has been submitted that, on 30.12.2021, this Court passed an interim
order directing the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the
present position of the petitioner.
4. It is contended that, despite the passing of the aforesaid interim order, the
respondents have issued the impugned order, transferring the petitioner to a
far-off place. According to the petitioner, the said order is not only illegal but
it is also contrary to the provisions of law. It has further been contended that
the respondents have assured the petitioner that he would be promoted, but
instead of promoting him, they have issued the impugned order, which has
the potential to adversely affect his avenues of promotion. It has been
contended that the impugned action of the respondents is unreasonable,
unfair and unjustified.
5. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, wherein it has
been contended that the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 has been issued by
WP(C) No. 222/2025 Page 2 of 6

the competent authority in the interest of administration, as such, the same
does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides . It has been
contended that the transfer is an exigency of service and that a Government
servant holding a transferable post has no fundamental right to remain posted
at a particular place. It has further been submitted that the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner along with other persons pertains to seniority,
promotion and inclusion in the final seniority list, and that by filing the
present petition, the petitioner is indirectly agitating the same issues. It has
been contended that the petitioner cannot pursue parallel proceedings on the
same cause of action. It has also been contended that mere sanction of charge
allowance in terms of Article 77B of the J&K Civil Services Regulations
does not confer upon the petitioner any right to promotion to a higher post.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
7. The issue that falls for determination in the present petition is whether the
challenge to the impugned order issued by the respondents, whereby the
petitioner has been transferred from Pahalgam Development Authority to
Lolab Bangus Development Authority is sustainable in law. It is a settled
proposition of law that a challenge to a transfer order before a Court can be
sustained on limited grounds, such as proven mala fides , violation of
mandatory statutory rules, or where the order has been issued by an
incompetent authority. It is also well settled that an employee has no
fundamental right to be posted at a specific place of his choice. Courts
generally defer to administrative decisions and rarely interfere with an order
of transfer unless a strong, well recognized ground of legal infirmity or
violation is made out.
WP(C) No. 222/2025 Page 3 of 6

8. With the aforesaid legal position in mind, let us now turn to the facts of the
case. In the present case, the petitioner is employed as a Helper with
Pahalgam Development Authority and he was working as Incharge Junior
Assistant at the time of issuance of the impugned order of transfer. During
the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
because the petitioner is holding a Class-IV post, which qualifies to be a
District Cadre Post, as such, it was not open to the respondents to transfer
him to a place outside the District, in which he was working. Reliance in this
regard has been placed on Rule 23 of J&K Civil Services Decentralization
and Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for short, “the Rules of 2010”). As per the said
Rules, a member of State, Divisional or District Cadre is transferable only
within his own Cadre and such member cannot be transferred from one
Divisional Cadre to another Divisional Cadre or one District Cadre to
another District Cadre. The issue as to whether Rule 23 of the Rules of 2010,
would be attracted to the facts of the present case needs to be determined for
the purpose of adjudicating the validity of the impugned order of transfer.
9. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is an employee of
Pahalgam Development Authority, which is a creature of J&K Development
Act, 1970. So far as Rules of 2010 are concerned, Rule 2 thereof provides
that the said Rules are applicable only to the posts under the Government.
Rule 4 of the said Rules provides for constitution of the District, Division
and State Cadres. As per this Rule, District, Division or State Cadres of the
services in each department of the Government are to be constituted. It
further provides that all posts borne on the establishment by a District level
office of a department, which carry a pay scale of, or equivalent to the post
WP(C) No. 222/2025 Page 4 of 6

of Senior Assistant but not included in a Divisional or State Cadre, shall
constitute District Cadre post. Thus Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010 provides for
constitution of District, Division or State Cadres in each department of the
Government.
10. In the present case, as already stated, a Development Authority being a
creature of statute, has a distinct identity from that of the Government. Even
if it is assumed that Rules of 2010 are applicable to a Development
Authority, still then unless District, Division or State Cadres are constituted
by such Development Authority, the post borne on its establishment cannot
be bifurcated into these three categories. In the present case, there is nothing
on record to show that the post of Helper borne on the establishment of the
Development Authority has been earmarked as District Cadre post. The
petitioner has not even incorporated the pleadings in this regard in his writ
petition. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Rule 23 of the Rules
of 2010 is attracted to his case and he could not have been transferred outside
District Anantnag, is without any basis.
11. That takes us to the other grounds that have been raised by the petitioner for
impugning the order of transfer. It has been contended that in the earlier writ
petition bearing WP(C) No. 2755/2021, this Court had passed an interim
order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the status of
the petitioner. It is to be noted that in the said writ petition, the subject matter
of determination related to seniority and promotion of the petitioner and
other employees. It was pleaded by the petitioner in the said writ petition that
he was holding the charge of Junior Assistant though he had not been
WP(C) No. 222/2025 Page 5 of 6

substantively promoted to the said post. It is in that backdrop that this Court
protected the status of the petitioners including the petitioner herein.
12. The order dated 30.12.2021 has to be construed in the aforesaid context and
cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to divest the respondents of their
power to transfer the petitioner from his place of posting. The said order only
protected the status of the petitioner as In-charge Junior Assistant. Therefore,
it was open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner from one place to
another.
13. The petitioner has neither pleaded any mala fides nor has he alleged that the
impugned order has been issued by an incompetent authority. Therefore, no
ground is made out for interference with the impugned order passed by the
respondents on this count as well.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The interim order dated 06.02.2025 is
vacated.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu
08.09.2026
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
WP(C) No. 222/2025 Page 6 of 6

Rakesh Kumar
2026.09.08 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Jammu