1 S. No. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.2331/2025 CM No.6175/2025 NITESH KUMAR …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Akhail Ahmad Badri, Advocate. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faizan Ahmad Ganie, CGC vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 29.09.2025 (ORAL) 1. Upon coming of the instant petition for consideration today, the counsel for the petitioner, while making his submissions, would contend that the petitioner has been working as a Subedar clerk in the Indian Army and serving in the J&K Light Infantry JAK L1 since 07-02-2000 and has held responsible assignments including Superintendent Manpower-Stats Section, and is presently functioning as Coordinator JCO NE Group. 2. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that while working as such, at JAK L1, petitioner came to be prematurely transferred in terms of order dated 06-09-2025 (for short ‘the impugned order’) though the petitioner was to complete his tenure in the month of May 2026, and on account of said premature transfer, grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner as the petitioner has served mostly at fields/high altitude/operational areas previously and now has been serving in a key station for about 10-12 months. 3. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that against the said premature transfer, petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the respondents on 11-09-2025, for making his posting on compassionate grounds either in 10 JAK L1 or 11 JAK L1 (Parent Unit) or else for deferment of his movement till 15-11-2025 and that the said representation was not considered by the respondents. 2 4. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been issued by the respondents in violation of the norms and Tenure Policy applicable to the petitioner in terms whereof the petitioner would complete his tenure in JAK L1 Record Room in the month of May 2026. 5. It is lastly contended by counsel for the petitioner that impugned order has been issued neither for public interest nor in the exigency of administration and the same also violates Article 21 of the Constitution applicable to the petitioner’s case qua right to life and dignity. 6. On the contrary, counsel for the respondents, would vehemently oppose the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner has remained posted in the Valley for 44 months, out of which the petitioner has remained posted for 16 months in the Regimental Center at Gulmarg Kashmir and 28 months in the Record Office JAK L1, Srinagar and thus has completed the normal tenure envisaged and provided under the guidelines/norms dated 11-09-1991, a copy whereof is also produced by counsel for the respondents and is taken on the record. 7. The counsel for the respondents would further submit that the impugned order stands implemented and that the petitioner stands relieved on 28-09-2025 and a copy of relieving/movement order in this regard also produced by counsel for the respondents is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Insofar as the transfer of a Government Servant is concerned, it is consistent view of the courts that transfer is an incidence of service and generally does not require the consent of an employee and that the employer has the power to transfer an employee so long as employee is posted on transferable post and that basic jural relationship of employee employer is not affected in any manner by transfer and that the power of transfer is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide and is prerogative with the employer to see at what place the services of an employee can be utilized and that an employee working on a transferable post has no right to insist that he should be allowed to serve at a place for a particular period and that once a person opts for an employment, he or she has to be ready for 3 performing his or her duties wherever will be asked to discharge the same by an employer. Further it is by now settled that no employee has any legal right to be posted at any particular place as transfer is not only an incidence but a condition of service. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid position qua the transfer of an employee in mind and reverting back to the case in hand, a bare perusal of the communication dated 11-09-1991 produced by the counsel for the respondents envisages that a normal tenure of a clerk in a Record Office/, Regimental Centre, is three years extendable to four years and it is specifically stated by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner herein has worked in the Kashmir valley, i.e. Regimental Centre Gulmarg, and Record Office JAK L1 Srinagar for a period of 44 months i.e. for more than three years. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have been prematurely transferred and thus, there is no occasion for the petitioner to contend that impugned order of transfer has caused severe prejudice to him or violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Besides, it is also significant to mention here that the petitioner is stated to have been already relieved in terms of the relieving/movement order dated 28-09-2025 produced by the counsel for the respondents, as such, this Court is not inclined to examine discretion. 10. In view of aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, the instant petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 29.09.2025 Ishaq Whether the judgement is speaking ? Yes/No Whether approved for reporting ? Yes/No