1 S. No. 110 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1702/2020 CM No. 4933/2020 Reserved on: 25.11.2025 Pronounced on: 17.12.2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full Judgement is pronounced: Full Mohammad Yousuf Lone …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shakir Haqani, Advocate Vs. Union of India and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Yasmeen Jan, Advocate vice Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI Mr. Omais Kawoos, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner, through the present petition, seeks the following reliefs: (i) Quashing of the impugned orders dated 31.10.2020, to the extent they pertain to the petitioner. (ii) A direction commanding the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the impugned order. (iii) A direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his deployment on the job of computerization and maintain his position as directed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of order dated 01.04.2013 (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order, or direction. 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India (FCI), Srinagar in the year 1993. Subsequently, on 06.05.1995, he was classified as an Ancillary Labourer and entitled to minimum wages of ₹55/- per day. 2 3. The petitioner contends that since 2004, he has been pursuing litigation seeking regularization against a Class-IV post. He asserts that he was assigned clerical duties, including computer operations, for which he was paid an incentive of ₹3,000/- per month. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 31.10.2020, which treats him as an Ancillary Worker and transfers him to the Food Storage Depot, Mir Bazar, Anantnag. The petitioner argues that this transfer violates FCI guidelines regarding the sanctioned strength of ancillary labourers at that depot, leading to a surplus. Furthermore, he submits that surplus ancillary labourers ought to be adjusted against available Class-IV vacancies, as per Circular dated 10.08.2020. 5. The respondents oppose the petition, contending that the petitioner suppressed the material fact that, prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order, he had filed a representation requesting a transfer from FSD Srinagar to FSD Lethpora. It is argued that the respondent issued the order dated 03.07.2020 solely based on the petitioner's own request. Consequently, the petitioner is estopped (legally precluded) from challenging the transfer or claiming the benefit of the Court order in this regard, given that they themselves solicited the action. It is a well-established legal principle (trite law) that when an individual invokes the extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court, it is imperative for them to disclose all material facts within their knowledge. The concealment or suppression of material facts constitutes a serious transgression, potentially amounting to playing a fraud upon the Court as well as the opposing party. 6. It is also contended by respondents that the petitioner cannot dictate his posting, as transfer is an exigency of service. They assert that the transfer order was issued in the interest of the smooth functioning of the Food Storage Depot (FSD) and has no bearing on the petitioner's pending claim for regularization. The respondents vehemently deny all other allegations and averments made in the writ petition. 7. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, observes that the power of judicial review in matters of transfer is extremely limited. As reiterated in the respondents' submission, transfer is an exigency of service, and an employee has no vested right to insist on being posted at a particular 3 location. Judicial interference is warranted only in cases of mala fides, violation of statutory rules, or where the transfer causes extreme and irreparable hardship. None of these grounds have been convincingly established in the present case. Furthermore, the Court notes the respondent’s assertion that the transfer order was issued subsequent to the petitioner’s own representation requesting a transfer. The alleged suppression of material fact, if proven, disentitles the petitioner to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in “Fayaz Ahmad Rather vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others”. 8. The petitioner’s primary grievance stems from being treated as an Ancillary Worker and not being regularized against a Class-IV post or permitted to continue on the computerization job. 9. The records indicate that the petitioner was classified as an Ancillary Labourer on 06.05.1995. While he claims to have been performing clerical/computer-related duties, his official classification and pay scale remain that of an Ancillary Labourer. The payment of an incentive of ₹3,000/- per month for computer-related duties, while indicative of the work being performed, does not automatically change his substantive classification or create a lien on a technical or clerical post. 10. More critically, in the context of claiming a higher post based on existing employment, this Court finds merit in the principle that a Class-IV employee cannot claim a right to a higher or specialized post (such as a technical or clerical position) merely by virtue of their current employment. Such an entitlement necessitates meeting specific, often technical, eligibility criteria defined in the relevant service rules and requires a proper selection or promotion process, as correctly argued in the concluding paragraph of the arguments presented. 11. The claim regarding the surplus of ancillary labourers at the new depot, based on Circulars dated 12.07.2016 and 10.08.2020, pertains to the internal administration and workforce management of the FCI. While the petitioner argues that the surplus workers should be adjusted against Class-IV vacancies, this is a matter for the employer 4 to address in line with their policy and service rules, not a ground to quash an administrative transfer order. The issue of regularization is, by the petitioner’s own admission, already pending before the Hon'ble Court. 12. Considering the limited scope of judicial review in transfer matters and the fact that the petitioner's substantive post is that of an Ancillary Labourer, the transfer order dated 31.10.2020 cannot be faulted solely on the ground of the petitioner performing computer duties or the alleged surplus of workers. The petitioner's claim for regularization or assignment to a higher post is a separate issue that must be adjudicated through the appropriate legal process and cannot be achieved by challenging a routine transfer order. 13. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable for dismissal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.12.2025 Manzoor Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 17.12.2025 17.17