Technical employees must be posted to roles commensurate with their status and sanctioned cadre strength.

The applicant, a Laboratory Assistant at Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Srinagar, challenged Order No. 70 of 2026 dated 04.05.2026, which transferred/deployed him to the District Mobile Forensic Unit (DFMU), Ganderbal.

This followed a previous litigation (O.A./1435/2025) where a similar transfer order was stayed by the Tribunal.

The applicant contended that his post is technical and there is no sanctioned post of Laboratory Assistant at Ganderbal.

The applicant is at the verge of superannuation, being 58 years old.

1. Whether a technical employee can be transferred to a unit where no sanctioned post for their specific designation exists.

2. Whether the administrative interest in transferring an employee overrides the consideration of their impending retirement and the principle of maintaining status commensurate with technical knowledge.

The court recognized that while transfers are generally within the domain of the competent authority, this power is subject to judicial review if it violates Article 21 (preservation of family life) or administrative logic.

S. K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India (2022 Live Law SC 266) regarding the limits of "administrative interest".

P. K. Chinnaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1988 SC 78) and Parveena Akhtar v. State of J&K (1998 SLJ JK 381) to establish that public officers must be given postings commensurate with their status and technical skills.

Regarding retirement, the court referenced Bodu Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Home Secretary, U.T. of Chandigarh v. Darshjit Singh (1993 (4) SCC 25), supporting the principle that employees nearing superannuation should ideally be posted near their hometown to facilitate pension processing.

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents argued transfer is an "incident of service", they must still address genuine grievances.

The court reasoned that deploying a technical official to a location (DFMU Ganderbal) that lacks a sanctioned post for his specific cadre (Laboratory Assistant) may not serve the "interest of administration," as work should be extracted commensurate with the official’s technical knowledge.

The Tribunal highlighted that because the applicant is retiring within a year, the administration should typically facilitate a posting that allows for the preparation of pension papers.

Rather than quashing the order outright, the Tribunal determined that the respondents must re-evaluate the deployment against these specific legal and logistical parameters.

The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by directing the respondents to consider the applicant's representation on its merits, specifically accounting for the lack of a sanctioned post at the new station and his impending retirement.

The Court ordered that the applicant be allowed to continue at his present place of posting (FSL Srinagar) until the representation is decided.

The respondents were directed to decide the matter within three weeks from the date of the order.