Court dismisses JK Board employee’s petition challenging transfer order

The Court stated that the petitioner does not have the right to demand a stay in a specific location as it lies within the employer's purview


In a recent ruling, Hon’ble Justice Puneet Gupta dismissed the writ petition titled Mumtaza Begum Vs chairman JK Board of School Education Jammu and others, pertaining to the transfer order of Mumtaza Begum, a junior assistant with the respondent organisation. The order was issued on grounds of health concerns and the welfare of her minor children.

Mumtaza Begum, along with her husband, had challenged the transfer order in a previous writ petition, which was disposed of on May 3, 2023. The Court directed the respondents to consider Mumtaza Begum’s case based on her health grounds and the needs of her minor children.

In compliance with the Court’s order, the respondents reviewed the petitioner’s representation and communicated their decision through an order dated May 29, 2023, which is being contested in the present petition.

The respondents provided Mumtaza Begum with the choice of being transferred to either J&K BOSE, Rehari, Jammu, or the board office in Srinagar. Furthermore, the petitioner was informed that accommodation would be arranged for her at the chosen place of posting, whether it be Srinagar or Jammu.

The respondents’ counsel, the learned deputy advocate general, also contended the order valid as the petitioner does not have the right to choose her place of posting. They state that Mumtaza Begum has been given the choice between Srinagar and Jammu, where adequate medical facilities are available for her treatment. Additionally, her husband is also posted in Jammu, enabling him to support her during her illness.

The Court opined that the petitioner’s case against the impugned order lacked merit. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s argument regarding the lack of a personal hearing was baseless, as there was no obligation on the part of the respondents to grant a personal hearing while considering the representation.

Concluding the judgment, the Court stated that the petitioner does not have the right to demand a stay in a specific location. The determination of an employee’s place of service lies within the employer’s purview.

Comment on the Article

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

five × one =