No employee has right to posting of choice: CAT

25/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 24: The Central Admin-istrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench, has held that transfer is an exigency of service and an employee has no vested right to insist on a posting at a place of her choice, while declining to quash the transfer of a Labour Officer appointed under the Prime Minister's Special Package for migrants.
Judicial Member M.S. Latif, while deciding O.A. No. 912/2026 filed by Beauty Hassan, observed that courts cannot substitute their choice of posting for that of the competent authority merely because another arrangement may appear preferable from the employee's perspective.
Hassan, appointed as a Labour Officer in 2020 under the Prime Minister's Special Package Scheme, was initially posted at Budgam and later transferred to Kulgam on her request. By an order dated June 15, 2026, she was transferred from Kulgam and posted as Labour Officer, Ganderbal Circle-II, against an available vacancy.
She challenged the transfer before the Tribunal, seeking permission to continue at Kulgam or, alternatively, a posting at a secure place in the vicinity, including Shopian, citing security and other concerns.
The Tribunal noted that she had already joined at Ganderbal pursuant to the transfer order. It observed that once an employee complies with a transfer order and joins the transferred post, the order stands executed and ordinarily ceases to have operative effect for seeking its quashing.
Advocate Suhaib F. Bandey appeared for the applicant, while Deputy Advocate General Syed Musaib represented the J&K Government and other official respondents.
The applicant's counsel submitted that she had joined the new posting under compulsion and protest. The Tribunal, however, noted that the claim had not been substantiated beyond an averment in the application. The Government counsel contended that the transfer order stood executed after her joining at Ganderbal.
Referring to Supreme Court and High Court judgments governing transfers, the Tribunal reiterated that it is for the employer to transfer an employee keeping administrative requirements in view and that an employee cannot insist on being transferred to, or retained at, a particular place.
At the same time, the Tribunal took note of the security concerns raised by the applicant and observed that where life and liberty are exposed to threat, the State has a duty to protect every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, observing that preservation of family life is a facet of Article 21. The Tribunal said the competent authority was not powerless to review a transfer order in appropriate circumstances.
While declining to quash the already-executed transfer order, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's pending representations on merits and in accordance with law, giving due regard to the decision of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, and other relevant circumstances.
The exercise has been directed to be completed within three weeks, after which the matter will be listed for compliance.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty