J&K HC Reiterates that Government Orders Are Subject to Statutory Rules

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

On 10th August 2020, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey heard the case of Shafat Ahmad Shah vs Union Territory of JK & Ors, via video-conferencing. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner worked as an Assistant Sales Manager. The respondents transferred him from Irwin Road Branch, New Delhi to Jarihaat Branch, Kolkata. The petitioner did not agree with this. He filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking this Court to quash his transfer order.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order is not in the interest of administration. Moreover, it does not add to the smooth functioning of the Corporation. Therefore, the respondents have issued the order without any application of mind. The petitioner seeks the Court to quash the order passed by the respondents.

Court’s Analysis

The Court heard the counsel of the petitioner and perused the documents before considering the matter. The Supreme Court and other Courts have earlier dealt with matters relating to the transfer of service. It is the prerogative of the employer to decide the place of service of an employee. This is because the employers know how the services can be best utilized in the larger public interest. The employee doesn’t have the right to insist on the place of his service if he holds a transferable post.

The Court referred to a case settled by a Full Bench of this Court. The said case was ‘Syed Hilal Ahmad vs. State & Ors.‘ which was decided on the 31st of August, 2015. The Full Bench held that it is a well-settled legal position that Government instructions do not have statutory force. The settled law is that the Executive Instructions / Government orders are subject to Statutory Rules. 

Further, the Legislature, who framed the Rule, cannot delegate its power to the Authorized Officer or the Executive. The executive can issue Government orders only within the bounds of the Rules. The legislature has not amended Rule 27 fixing any minimum or maximum tenure to a Government servant to serve in a particular station. Hence, strict implementation of a minimum of 2 years and maximum 3 years tenure is not intended in the Government order.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel requests the Court to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner’s representation is to allow him to work at his present place of posting due to the COVID-19 situation.

Court’s Decision

The Court directed the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner according to the rules governing the subject and pass appropriate orders thereon. Thus, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -