Srinagar: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that the case of a government employee nearing retirement warrants special consideration in transfer matters, particularly in view of the difficulties involved in completing pension-related formalities.
The Tribunal directed the Jammu and Kashmir government to reconsider the transfer of a senior Co-operative Department officer due to retire within a year, while declining to interfere with the transfers of four other officials from Kashmir to Jammu division.
The order was passed by a Tribunal Member (Judicial) M.S. Latif on October 26 in O.A. No. 1110/2026, with the competent authority directed to pass appropriate orders on the officer’s case within two weeks.
The case was filed by five officials of the Co-operative Department challenging Government Order No. 27-JK (Coop) of 2026, dated October 1, insofar as it transferred them from Kashmir division to Jammu division.
The applicants—Shahzada Amiq Hussain, Farooq Ahmad Lone, Muddaser Iqbal Shah, Javid Ahmad Bhat and Tabasum Iqbal Qurashi—sought quashing of the transfer order and their adjustment against available posts of Assistant Registrars (Co-operative) or equivalent positions in Kashmir division.
The officials had been appointed as Junior Supervisors/Sub-Auditors and were subsequently considered for promotion. On June 11, 2026, they were placed as In-charge Assistant Registrars/Auditors in their existing pay and grade, with admissible charge allowance, pending regular appointments through the prescribed selection process.
Their counsel argued that the transfers were arbitrary and contrary to the applicable transfer policy, contending that suitable vacancies were available in the Kashmir division.
They also relied on a departmental proposal dated July 15, 2026, recommending adjustment of the applicants in the division.
Particular emphasis was placed on Hussain, aged 59, who is due to retire within a year. His counsel argued that transferring him at this stage would cause hardship in completing pension papers and other retirement-related formalities.
The government opposed the plea, maintaining that the transfers were ordered in the interest of administration and to address operational requirements across the Union Territory. It argued that Assistant Registrar and equivalent posts are UT-cadre positions under the applicable service rules, making their incumbents liable to serve anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir.
The government further submitted that the applicants had served in the Kashmir division for periods ranging from three to eight years, exceeding normal tenure limits. Its response cited 55 vacancies in Kashmir division and 39 in Jammu division, while asserting that vacancies in Kashmir did not prevent deployment of officers to meet requirements elsewhere.
The Tribunal reiterated that transfer is an incident of service and that judicial interference is generally limited, particularly in the absence of mala-fides or an order issued by an incompetent authority.
However, relying on judicial precedents concerning employees nearing retirement, it held that Hussain’s case merited separate consideration. The Tribunal also noted that the government had retained two other officials near their hometowns because they were due to retire within three to four months.
The competent authority was directed to reconsider Hussain’s case in light of the observations and cited judgments and issue appropriate orders within two weeks. The Tribunal found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the transfers of the remaining four applicants.
The application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.
