HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR, J.
Sumit Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 433 of 2026, CM No. 1015 of 2026, Cav. No. 478 of 2026, Cav. No. 471 of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged the order No. PEE/101 dated 12.02.2026 issued by the respondent No. 2-National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (for short, ‘NHPC Ltd.’) whereby he has been transferred from Chenab Valley Power Projects Private Limited (for short, ‘CVPPPL’), Corporate Office, Jammu to Baira Siul Power Station, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon respondent No. 2 to conduct an inquiry against the conduct of respondent No. 7-Ramesh Mukhiya, Managing Director, Chenab Valley Power Projects Private Ltd. (CVPPPL), Jammu, against whom he is stated to have filed a complaint which is pending before respondent No. 2 with a further direction that respondent No. 2 should resolve all the pending issues of the petitioner.
02. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Trainee Engineer with NHPC Limited on 15.03.2004 and at present he is working as Group Senior Manager (Civil) since 2017 and is posted with CVPPPL, Corporate Office, Jammu. It has been submitted that in the previous past, the petitioner was transferred to Pakal Dul HE Project, Kishtwar in terms of an order dated 26.12.2024 which came to be challenged by him before this Court by way of a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 184/2025. It has been submitted that vide interim order dated 30.01.2025 passed in the said writ petition, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioner to continue at his present place of posting till next date of hearing. While implementing the said order, the respondents permitted the petitioner to join at his present place of posting. The same was made subject to further orders of the Court.
03. It has been submitted that the petitioner, due to his upright conduct and because he has been questioning the administrative irregularities, is facing annoyance from senior officers and top management who have tried to suppress his voice in one way or the other. It has been submitted that in August 2025, the petitioner had made suggestions with regard to discrepancies in HR circular for celebration of Independence Day but respondent No. 5. Instead of addressing the issue, removed him from official WhatsApp group, which action has been challenged by him by way of a civil suit. It has been further submitted that on 10.12.2025 the petitioner had filed a representation before the Director (Personnel), NHPC limited highlighting the discrepancies in the format of undertaking for release of arrears.
04. On 13.01.2026, the petitioner is stated to have filed a complaint before respondent No. 6 regarding violation of NHPC Circular dated 29.04.2014 which provides for furnishing of copy of Performance Appraisal Report-(PAR) as the petitioner was not being provided a copy of his PAR.
05. It has also been submitted that another complaint dated 23.12.2025 has been filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 5 for his gross negligence in handling service related issues of the petitioner. It has been submitted that on 15.01.2026 the petitioner was prevented from attending the review meeting and he was manhandled by security guards which forced him to file a complaint before Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu on 18.01.2026. When no action was taken, he filed an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police on07.02.2026.
06. It has been further submitted that the petitioner filed a complaint dated 20.01.2026 before respondent No. 6 requesting initiation of disciplinary action against respondent No. 7 for continued misconduct, criminal intimidation and threat but no action was taken by the respondents. Instead of taking action in the matter, the respondents proceeded to issue the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 thereby transferring him outside the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
07. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has a pending issue regarding credit of his EL and HPL which was not credited to his leave account by the CO,
Point of law: Transfer is an incident of service and that a government servant is liable to the transferred to a similar post in the same cadre.
Transfer orders within a company are administrative decisions that can be contested only on grounds of mala fides or clear policy violations, not merely for causing personal inconvenience.
Administrative transfers are valid if justified by exigency and do not violate policy; employees cannot claim a right to remain in a specific post.
The Court's decision emphasized that in the absence of mala fides or policy violations, challenges to routine transfer orders should be minimal, and the employer has the prerogative to decide how to ....
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Burden of proving mala fides in transfer orders is high; transfers made in public interest are generally not subject to judicial intervention unless proven arbitrary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.