WP (C) No. 553/2025 Page 1 of 3 Sr. No. 45 Suppl. Cause List. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 553/2025 CM No. 1356/2025 & 1357/2025 Ghulam Nabi Magray …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms Aasifa Rashid Padder, Adv. Vs. Union Territory of JK & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG with Mr. Mohd Younus Hafiz, AC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE O R D E R 14.03.2025 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon‟ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench dated 3rd March 2025 by which the petition filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner was initially engaged on Daily Wage basis as “Works Supervisor” in the Pahalgam Project Organization under the Public Works Department on 24.03.1998. On 1st April 1995, the petitioner was regularized as Helper (Class IV). In 1997 he was transferred to PW(R&B) Division Khanabal, Anantnag. Thereafter, from 30.05.1997 to 21.09.2023, the petitioner worked in Pahalgam. On 21.09.2023, the petitioner‟s Division was changed from PW(R&B) Anantnag to Division D.H. Pora. On 02.02.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was sent on deputation from division D.H. Pora to R&B Division Pahalgam and lastly by the order impugned before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is an order dated 10.02.2025, the petitioner was transferred from R&B Division Pahalgam to R&B Mechanical Division South Kashmir. Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.03.2025 WP (C) No. 553/2025 Page 2 of 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order is illegal as the petitioner was on deputation by the order dated 02.02.2024 and before he could be repatriated, his consent ought to have been taken which was never taken in the present case. As regards the second prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that Central Administrative Tribunal, has protected the seniority of the petitioner. However, in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment under challenge, the Hon‟ble Tribunal held that transfer is an inherent condition of service, and an employee does not have an indefeasible right to remain at a particular location indefinitely and it is as per wisdom of the employer to take the services of the employee at a place which the employer considers as best suited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was sent on deputation by the order dated 02.02.2024 and, therefore, the order of repatriation dated 10.02.2025 was illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand on advance copy has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioners department always remained the PWD and that the transfer does not fall within the definition of a “Deputation”. On those premises, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, passed in Civil Appeal No. 346 of 2023 titled M/s Sarita Singh Vs. M/s Shree Infosoft Private Limited does not apply in the facts of this case. In this regard, this Court records that the learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically relied upon paragraph No. 11 of the said judgment where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to an earlier judgment passed in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Inder Singh & Ors. (1997) 8 SCC 372 clarified the concept of deputation and inter alia held that deputation means “service outside the cadre or outside the parent department”. It also held that there can be no deputation without the consent of the persons who were deputed. Learned counsel for the respondents has further referred to the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 and has argued that the said order has transferred the petitioner from one Division to another, but the parent cadre remains the same which is the PWD. He has further argued that merely the word „deputed” has been used which does not reflect that the Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.03.2025 WP (C) No. 553/2025 Page 3 of 3 petitioner was sent on deputation as before passing the said order, no consent was ever taken of the petitioner which otherwise ought to have been taken. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The facts stated hereinabove are undisputed. It is undisputed that the petitioner has consistently been in PWD Department itself. Both the divisions i.e. from the division where from he was transferred and the division to which he was transferred, to are under the Department of PWD itself. There is no change of department by the impugned order. Merely because the word “deputed” has been used in the order dated 10.02.2025 does not mean that transfer of the petitioner by the said order was actually a deputation. The words used in the order may not truly reflect the intention of the authority and the same must be decided in the sum totality of the circumstances in which the order has been passed. As the undisputed fact is that the transfer order still retains the petitioner within the same department, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 10.02.2025 is not an order of deputation but an order of transfer. Therefore, the transfer being an incident of service, the petitioner has no right to seek relief against it until and unless the same has been passed on malicious ground or by an authority who is not competent. The petitioner has not been able to establish to the satisfaction of the Court either of those. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 14.03.2025 Altaf Mohd Altaf Nima I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.03.2025