G S MAURYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Scientist-C in the Central Silk Board. The petitioner was transferred from Sericulture Research Station, Central Silk Board, Sahapur, Jammu to Research Extension Center, Central Board, Naushera, Jammu. The petitioner filed a representation against his transfer, which was rejected by the Central Silk Board by order dated 2. 5. 2008. The petitioner filed a claim petition challenging both the orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Jammu where the petitioner is now being posted is a disturbed area. He has drawn our attention to the notification dated 10. 8. 2001 by which the district of Jammu amongst certain other districts has been declared as disturbed area under the provisions of Section 3 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner has previously been posted in Jammu in Miran Sahib for the period 22. 5. 1995 to 30. 4. 2001 and that there are other persons of longer standing than the petitioner who have not been posted to Jammu. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the transfer order is mala fide. The tribunal has considered these contentions, which were advanced before it and it has found that the plea of mala fides taken by the petitioner has not been established. As regards Jammu being a disturbed area and about the petitioner's posting at Jammu the tribunal has observed that at that time when the petitioner was posted in Miran Sahib Jammu was not a disturbed area. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been posted at Sahapur since the year 2001, as such the petitioner's stay at Sahapur has been for a long time and the order of transfer therefore cannot be faulted with. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that transfer order does not contain any reason. We do not find any merit in this contention in as much as transfer being an exigency of service it is not necessary that the order must contain reasons. We do no find any error committed by the tribunal in rejecting the claim petition. Dismissed. .