Transfer is an incidence of service and warrants interference only for established legal infirmity.

The applicant challenged his transfer from Tehsil Office Hajin to Tehsil Office Tulail by order dated 18 January 2025, alleging it was retaliatory for pursuing contempt proceedings and seeking a nearby posting on medical and humanitarian grounds.

The respondents maintained that the transfer was part of a district-wide administrative exercise and that the Deputy Commissioner was competent to issue it; the applicant filed no rejoinder.

In M.A. No. 229/2026, the applicant sought unpaid salary, while the respondents disputed his service and salary entitlement by reference to conflicting date-of-birth records and his alleged non-attendance from 7 November 2025.

Whether the transfer order was liable to be set aside as mala fide, retaliatory, arbitrary, or issued by an incompetent authority, and whether the Tribunal could direct the applicant’s adjustment to a nearby Tehsil.

Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate release of the salary claimed in the M.A., or whether his date of birth, superannuation status, and actual attendance first required determination.

Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal may review service-related administrative action.

Transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service, and an employee has no vested right to a particular posting; judicial interference is generally limited to cases involving an incompetent authority, violation of statutory provisions, established mala fides, or another legally recognized infirmity.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, and State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402.

A plea of mala fides must be supported by concrete material and cannot be inferred from timing alone.

Date-of-birth and consequential superannuation questions must be determined under the applicable Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations, including Article 35-AA, consistently with the prior order in O.A. No. 819/2025.

The applicant produced no contemporaneous evidence that he had been pressured to withdraw the contempt petition or that the transfer was ordered in retaliation.

The order covered seven employees, and the respondents’ explanation—that the applicant had remained in local Tehsils for over five years after absorption—was not controverted by a rejoinder.

The recent prior transfer and medical circumstances did not establish a legal right to a chosen posting, and no binding provision was shown to disqualify the Deputy Commissioner from making the transfer.

On the salary claim, the Tribunal found unresolved disputes both about the applicant’s date of birth and whether he had attended work during the period claimed.

It therefore declined to order immediate payment, but held that salary could not be withheld indefinitely without a final decision made in accordance with law and verification of attendance.

The M.A. was disposed of with directions to the competent authority to determine the applicant’s date of birth and consequential superannuation under the applicable rules, consider the school records, the 2019 District Medical Board certificate, and the prior order in O.A. No. 819/2025, provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard, verify his attendance and service, and decide and release any salary legally due.

The exercise was to be completed within six weeks by a reasoned order; the Tribunal expressed no view on the merits of the salary claim.