Facts
The applicant, an Incharge Assistant Executive Engineer (I/c AEE), was adjusted at Sub-Transmission Division-II (STD-II), Sub Division-II, JPDCL, Jammu, vide Order No. 154-MD/JPDCL of 2025 dated 06.12.2025
Source reference: p. 2Subsequently, the official respondents issued Government Order No. 181-JK (PDD) of 2025 on 27.12.2025, transferring Respondent No. 4 to the same post held by the applicant
Source reference: p. 2The applicant challenged this transfer as a violation of the prevailing transfer policy and sought to complete his minimum tenure
Source reference: p. 2During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents issued a fresh Government Order (No. 24-JK (PDD) of 2026 dated 16.01.2026), whereby Respondent No. 4 was transferred to a different location
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the impugned transfer order (No. 181-JK (PDD) of 2025) should be quashed for violating the transfer policy and minimum tenure norms
Source reference: p. 22. Whether the cause of action survived following the issuance of the subsequent transfer order dated 16.01.2026
Source reference: p. 3Law Applied
The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows aggrieved public servants to seek redressal regarding service matters
Source reference: p. 2The court applied the principle of "infructuous litigation," wherein a legal proceeding is dismissed when the grievance or cause of action is resolved by intervening circumstances or subsequent administrative actions
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal examined the impact of Government Order No. 24-JK (PDD) of 2026 on the applicant's status. It noted that Respondent No. 4, who was originally intended to replace the applicant, had been posted elsewhere by the new order
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the applicant was no longer being displaced and continued to hold his position at STD-II, Jammu
Source reference: p. 3The court reasoned that since the applicant was no longer aggrieved by the threat of displacement by Respondent No. 4, the primary "cause of action" projected in the Original Application had ceased to exist
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The Tribunal held that the Original Application was rendered infructuous due to the subsequent administrative order ensuring the applicant remained in his current posting
The O.A. was disposed of accordingly
Source reference: p. 3the Tribunal granted the applicant liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies should any fresh cause of action arise in the future
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Rishi kumarvsPOWER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in