WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 1 of 15

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on : 02.03.2026

Pronounced on : 12.03.2026

Uploaded on : 12.03.2026

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced: Full

WP(C) No. 433/2026

CM No. 1015/2026

Cav. No. 478/2026

Cav. No. 471/2026

Sumit Kumar

…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Intikhab Hussain Shah, Advocate

Vs

Union of India & Ors.

.….Respondents

Through: Mr. A.P. Singh, Advocate

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR , JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

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

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 2 of 15

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.

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 3 of 15

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

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 4 of 15

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 on

07.02.2026.

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, CVPPL

and the said issue is pending consideration before this

Court in WP(C) No. 184/2025. It has been submitted

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 5 of 15

that without resolution of the said issue, the petitioner

cannot join any other station as it will amount to further

confusion in his service record. It has been contended

that the impugned transfer order is not based on any

organizational requirement or administrative exigency

but it has been issued solely to victimize the petitioner.

08. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in their reply to the writ petition

have submitted that the impugned order has been passed

in administrative exigency for which the competent

authority is the best judge to decide the distribution and

utilization of service of its employees. It has been

contended that the present transfer order has been

issued by the parent company of the petitioner as there

was shortage of manpower in Civil Engineering Discipline

in Baira Siul Power Station. It has been further

submitted that transfer of the petitioner has been effected

after completion of his tenure at CVPPPL Region and that

he has been transferred from a soft location to another

soft location.

09. It has been contended that the petitioner has been

transferred after serving for almost five years in Jammu

Province and the transfer has been effected keeping in

view the organizational interest as the petitioner has

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 6 of 15

already worked at the level of Assistant Manager at that

place and his previous experience will be beneficial to the

organization so as to get the works at his new place of

posting executed in a proper manner . It has been

submitted that the impugned transfer order is not

actuated by any extraneous considerations.

10. Giving details of the leave/absence of the petitioner, it

has been submitted by the respondents that the

petitioner has worked merely for 41 days during the

financial year 2022-23 as he has availed different kinds

of leave during this period. It has been further submitted

that the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent

w.e.f. 27.08.2023 to 15.02.2024 and this period is yet to

be regularized.

11. It has been further submitted that copy of PAR for the

period 21.09.2022 to 31.03.2023 has already been

furnished to the petitioner. It has been submitted that

the petitioner has not been victimized by the

Management but his transfer is strictly in accordance

with the transfer policy of respondent-NHPC Limited. It

has been contended that the petitioner has no right in

law to question his transfer from one place to another,

particularly, when there is no mala-fides alleged against

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 7 of 15

the parent organization i.e. NHPC Limited which has

passed the impugned transfer order.

12. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6-(CVPPPL) have filed their

separate objections to the writ petition. In their

objections, it has been submitted that the impugned

order has not been issued by the said organization but it

has been issued by the parent organization i.e. NHPC

Limited. It has been submitted that the petitioner was

transferred from Ranjit Power Station to Chenab Valley

Power Projects Private Limited (CVPPPL) vide order dated

22.04.2021 issued by the NHPC Limited whereafter he

was posted at Pakal Dul HE Project of CVPPPL vide order

dated 30.06.2021, because as per the transfer policy, he

was required to serve at difficult posting after having

been transferred from soft posting. It has been submitted

that the petitioner remained physically present at difficult

posting only for eleven months as he opted for one or the

other kind of leave to avoid serving on difficult posting.

13. It has been submitted that the petitioner applied for his

sabbatical leave w.e.f. 01.07.2023 to 30.06.2025 but the

said leave was never sanctioned by the competent

authority as a result of which the petitioner remained

unauthorizedly absent from duty during the period from

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 8 of 15

27.08.2023 to 15.02.2024. The petitioner is stated to

have been transferred to Corporate Office of CVPPPL on

22.01.2024 where he joined on 16.02.2024. The said

posting is stated to be a soft posting.

14. It has been submitted that the petitioner is in the habit of

filing complaints / communications / grievances /

representations repeatedly against the authorities of

CVPPPL without following the proper channels. According

to respondent-CVPPPL, the petitioner has been time and

again cautioned to desist from such activities and in this

regard letter dated 14.11.2024 as also an advisory letter

dated 23.07.2025 were issued to the petitioner. It has

been submitted that the aforesaid activities of the

petitioner amount to misconduct and he was issued a

show cause notice dated 03.01.2025 by CVPP PL. The

same is subject matter of consideration in WP(C) No.

184/2025.

15. Regarding removal of the petitioner from WhatsApp

group, it has been submitted that the said group is un-

official and informal. It has been submitted that the

petitioner was removed from the said group because he

was posting illogical and inappropriate messages thereby

creating unnecessary disturbance in the group.

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 9 of 15

16. Regarding furnishing of copies of Performance Appraisal

Reports (PARs) , respondent-CVPPPL has submitted that

the petitioner has been provided the same after receiving

comments from the parent organization i.e. NHPC

Limited. It has been submitted that as soon as PARs

completed in all respects were available in HR

Department of the CVPPPL, the same were provided to

the petitioner. It has been submitted that the impugned

order has been issued by the parent or ganization

whereby the petitioner has been transferred to a soft

posting and that the present petition is only an attempt

to avoid the transfer on vague and extraneous

considerations.

17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

record of the case.

18. Before coming to the merits of the challenge laid by the

petitioner against the impugned order of transfer, it is

necessary to analyze the legal position as regards the

scope of power of the Court to interfere with an order of

transfer. It is a settled law that a government servant has

no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice

nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or

the other. He is liable to be transferred in the

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 10 of 15

administrative exigencies from one place to the other.

Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent

in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an

essential condition of service in the absence of any

specific indication to the contrary. No Government can

function if the government servant insists that once

appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he

should continue in such place or position as long as he

desires (Refer State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004

11 SCC P 406).

19. The Supreme Court, while considering the scope of power

of Courts to interfere with the transfer order, has in the

case of Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, held as under :-

“4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a

transfer Order which is made in public interest and for

administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made

in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the

ground of mala-fide. A Government servant holding a

transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one

place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one

place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent

authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a

transfer Order is passed in violation of executive

instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not

interfere with the Order instead affected party should

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 11 of 15

approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the

Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders

issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities,

there will be complete chaos in the Administration which

would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court

over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer

orders.”

20. Again in the case of N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India,

1994 6 SCC 98, the Supreme Court has while

considering the aforesaid issue has observed as under :-

“6. … the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of

a government servant to an equivalent post without any

adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is

very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala

fides and violation of any specific provision….”

21. From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it is

clear that scope of interference in transfer orders of

employees by the Courts is of a very limited nature. Over

the years, the grounds for interference in transfer orders

that have evolved on the basis of judicial precedents

include mala-fides, violation of statutory rules, transfer

order issued by an incompetent authority, transfers

driven by political consideration, transfers outside the

cadre and transfers used as a punitive measure.

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 12 of 15

22. In the present case, the petitioner is claiming that the

impugned order of transfer is a result of mala-fides as he

has been agitating against the policies of the respondents

and in fact, he had to file a writ petition impugning his

transfer from Jammu to Kishtwar, which transfer order

was issued by the CVPPPL as a punitive measure. It is

case of the petitioner that the issue with regard to his

sabbatical leave is not being resolved by the respondents

and if he is transferred to a place outside the Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, he will not be able to

pursue the said matter, which in fact, is subject matter of

determination before this Court in another writ petition

filed by him.

23. There is no doubt to the fact that the material on record

does show that the petitioner has been at odds with the

management of respondent-CVPPPL. He has made

several complaints and representations with the

respondent-CVPPPL regarding the issue relating to his

unauthorized absence, furnishing of Performance

Appraisal Reports (PARs) and his objection with regard to

format of undertaking to be furnished by the employees

while seeking release of arrears of salary on account of

pay anomaly. However, the petitioner has not raised any

allegation of mala-fides against his parent organization

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 13 of 15

i.e. NHPC Limited. The order impugned has been issued

by the NHPC Limited which is the parent organization of

petitioner. In the absence of any allegations of mala-fides

against the authority which has issued the impugned

order, the grounds projected by the petitioner for

impugning the transfer order appear to be meritless.

24. The respondents have placed on record a copy of transfer

policy issued by respondent-NHPC Limited. As per the

said transfer policy, CVPPPL Kiru and Pakal Dul come

within the category of difficult posting whereas CVPPPL

Jammu and Baira Siul, Regional Office, Banikhet, fall

under the category of soft posting. The record shows that

the petitioner has remained posted in the Union Territory

of Jammu and Kashmir for the last about five years out

of which he has mostly remained physically posted at

Jammu which is a soft posting. When he was transferred

to difficult posting at Pakal Dul, Kishtwar, he has availed

leave. From Jammu the petitioner has been transferred

and posted to project at Baira Siul, Regional Office,

Banikhet, which is a place located at Himachal Pradesh

and it has been categorized as soft posting. Thus,

petitioner has been transferred from one soft posting to

another soft posting. It is pertinent to mention here that

the place to which the petitioner has been transferred is

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 14 of 15

nearer to his hometown, Faridabad than Jammu. Thus, it

cannot be stated that impugned transfer order is either

punitive in nature or the same is a result of mala-fides.

25. As per the transfer policy issued by NHPC Limited ,

transfer of an employee has to be considered after he has

spent a minimum of two years at hard location and three

years at difficult location and four years in a soft station.

It further provides that tenure of two years at Cluster I

i.e. Hard Posting and tenure of three years at Cluster II

i.e. Difficult Posting would constitute only the physical

stay excepting the leave.

26. In the instant case, the petitioner has physically spent

only 41 days at Kishtwar which is a hard location and

thereafter he has been transferred to Jammu, where he is

posted since February, 2024. His transfer back to hard

posting at Kishtwar has been stayed by this Court and in

the meantime, the parent organization has passed the

impugned order posting the petitioner to another soft

location in Himachal Pradesh which is nearer to his

hometown. Therefore, no violation of the transfer policy

has been committed by the respondent-NHPC Limited by

issuing the impugned order of transfer.

WP(C) No. 433/2026 Page 15 of 15

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the case of the

petitioner does not fall into any of the categories in which

this Court can interfere. The grounds projected by the

petitioner for impugning the transfer order are without

any merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be

meritless and is dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR )

JUDGE

JAMMU

12.03.2026

SUNIL

Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes

Whether the order is reportable ? : Yes