SHALINDER KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be working as Stock Keeper (Technical), having the rank of Naib Subedar and has served at Khumbathang, Leh (Ladakh) in terms of the order of posting dated 06.09.2018, issued by the Respondent No. 6 and in terms of order passed on 19.10.2018, the petitioner, as claimed, has been relieved without any reason and in terms of another order bearing PO No. 1328/2018 dated 26.11.2018, issued by OIC Records, BEG Records Kirkee, the petitioner was posted to 105-Engr Regt. C/O 99 APO. It is further stated that the place of posting of the petitioner in terms of order impugned is situated in North-East and in terms of communication dated 29.11.2018, as stated, the petitioner was asked to report to new unit by 10.12.2018. Feeling aggrieved of the order of transfer dated 26.11.2018 and the communication dated 29.11.2018, asking the petitioner to report to new unit by 10.12.2018, the petitioner challenged the same by virtue of the instant writ petition on the grounds detailed out in the writ petition. The grounds being relevant are taken note of:

(2.) On notice, the respondents filed objections supported by the affidavit of Satyendra R. Rajput S/o Ramachal Singh R/o BB Cantt, Srinagar, officiating as Major, Garrison Engineer 864 Engineering Works Section, questioning the maintainability of the writ petition for the reliefs claimed, on the reason that the petitioner being an army personnel possessing the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO), holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted in a particular office on a particular post at one place in Srinagar. It is also submitted that the petition of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed as the Court lacks jurisdiction as per section 34 of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, whereby all the matters relating to the service are to be transferred which are pending before the High Court or on the onset are to be dismissed. The respondents have also dealt with parawise issues raised by the petitioner in the parawise reply of the objections.

(3.) Needless to mention that on consideration of the matter, the Court on the motion hearing in terms of order dated 04.12.2018, while recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on further examination of the pleadings supported by the documents and the law, issued notice and directed the respondents that the present position of the petitioner as it existed on 04.12.2108, shall not be disturbed. The order being relevant is taken note of;