MANZOOR AHMED BEIGH Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-10-2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 19,2006

Manzoor Ahmed Beigh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BASHIR A.KIRMANI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was holding the post of Master in Education Department on substantive basis and after years of service as such was vide Government Order No. 186 -SW of 1994 dated 22.09.1994 transferred and posted as 'District Manager, J&K; SC/ST/OBC Development Corporation' against an available vacancy on deputation basis for a period of two years. While working as such he was adjusted in Social Welfare Department as 'Child Development Project Officer' vide Order No. 195 -SW of 1996 dated 01.07.1996 and continued to work as such till Sept. 2003. Grievance projected is that vide order No. 169 -SW of 2003 dated 02.09.2003 petitioner was asked to report back to General Administration Department (GAD) for his reversion to parent Department i.e. Education Department which as per the petitioner could not have been done because under Order No. 195 -SW of 1996 above said he was permanently adjusted as 'Child Development Project Officer' in Social Welfare Department and requisite formalities for termination of his lien in Education Department were to be completed by GAD which they failed to do.
(2.) AGGRIEVED , he seeks quashment of said order on the ground that he was permanently absorbed in Social Welfare Department as 'Child Development Project Officer' and has continuously worked as such since 1996, so his adjustment there would be deemed to be an appointment by transfer as his lien in parent department was required to be terminated by GAD which they failed to do, which in no case would effect his status as 'Child Development Project Officer,' particularly because he holds a Master's Degree in Sociology and has years of experience in social work that he performed under a voluntarily organization called 'Kahkashan' and thus his placement as 'Child Development Project Officer' in Social Welfare Department would deemed to be an appointment in terms of Rule (9) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1956 (hereinafter referred as J&K; CSR) whereunder appointment by transfer is a re -cognized mode of appointment. In their reply the respondents while taking an objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that under impugned order of 02.09.2003 one 'Khalid Jahangir', CDPO has already assumed charge of District Social Welfare Officer, Doda on 3rd Sept. 2003 in place of petitioner who has not been impleaded as party in the writ petition, have also pleaded that petitioner was never appointed permanently in Social Welfare Department but was only on deputation in his own pay and grade and the deputation was covered by the term Schedule 18 of J&K; CSR with his lien and promotion prospects in his parent Department in tact, and as such the order of his reversion back to parent Department did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. It is further pleaded that under order dated 01.07.1996 whereby petitioner was posted as CDPO Kishtwar, it was amply clarified that he shall retain his lien and promotional prospects in the parent Department till his case was decided by GAD and as such the respondents were not debarred from repatriating the petitioner back to his parent Department. During course of submissions the counsel appearing for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. The sole question that emerges in the controversy in the crystallized form is whether petitioner's transfer and posting to Social Welfare Department as initially issued Order No. 186 -SW dated 22.09.94 and followed by temporary adjustment order of 01.07.1996 under No. 195 -SW of 1996 was his mere deputation to the Social Welfare Department or his appointment therein by transfer. While petitioner claims that under aforesaid orders he was appointed in Social Welfare Department by transfer in terms of Rule (9) of J&K; CSR, the stand of respondents is that he was purely on deputation in his own pay and grade and was never appointed, or intended to be appointed in that department, particularly in view of the fact that his lien in the parent department of Education continues till date with his promotional prospects there expressly reserved.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.