INDU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of present petition, petitioner seeks the following relief:-

(2.) The facts, as detailed in the petition are briefly stated that the petitioner came to be selected and appointed as Accounts Assistant under Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants to Kashmir Valley (SRO 412) of 2009 dated 30th of December, 2009 in the respondent-department vide Government Order No.282-F of 2010 dated 24th of November, 2010 in pursuance of recommendations made by J &K Services Selection Board. Subsequently, she along with others came to be deputed to undergo one year ACC training at Accountancy Training Institute, Srinagar and after completion of said training, she was posted as Accounts Assistant in District Treasury, Kupwara where she had performed her duties to complete satisfaction of superior authorities. It is contended that the petitioner is the only female employee in District Treasury Kupwara and did feel secure in the Kashmir Valley due to the tensions/turmoil erupted from the last few years. It is contended that petitioner's appointment is governed by J &K Kashmiri Migrants (Special Drive Recruitment Rules, 2009)(for brevity 'the Rules'). In the aforesaid Rules, posts specially created from time to time in the Valley under the Prime Minister's Special Package for Return and Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants to Kashmir Valley, are to be filled up in terms of Rule 2(e). The aforesaid Rules further envisages in Rule 4(4) that an appointee to a post created under the Rules shall have to execute an agreement with the government on a prescribed form that he/she will serve in the Valley against the post on which she/he is appointed and at a place where she/he will be posted. The Rules also provides that in case the appointee migrates from the Valley again for any reason whatsoever, he/she lose the job without any notice and shall stand terminated. As per Rule 6(6), an appointee under the said Rules shall have to work within Kashmir Valley and shall be eligible for transfer outside the Valley under any circumstances. It is contended that the petitioner continued to hold the post of Accounts Assistant specially created under the aforesaid Scheme till the year 2015 when vide Order No.79-Acctts of 2015 dated 25th of February, 2015 issued by respondent No.3-Director General, Accounts and Treasuries, J &K, Srinagar/Jammu, she came to be placed as In-charge Accountant in her own pay and grade with charge allowance admissible under the Rules-Subordinate Accounts Service Class-II (Accountants) by corresponding abolition/reduction of two supernumerary posts of Accounts Assistant. It is contended that petitioner has been subsequently regularized against the post of Accountant as a member of Kashmir Subordinate Accounts Service, Class-II (Accountants) vide order No.70- Acctts of 2016 dated 4th of March, 2016. It is contended that the petitioner now performing her duties against the post of Accountant borne on regular State Budget and had been requesting the respondents to either transfer her move office or to any place in Jammu and on that count, she submitted a representation before the respondent in January, 2017 but the request of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.3 in terms of his communication No.DGAT/E-11/PF-1988/1 dated 18.01.2017 on the ground that same does merit any consideration in terms of Rule 4(4) of 'the Rules'.

(3.) On notice, response has been filed by the respondent No.3 and 4 resisting therein the claim of the petitioner. The main contention of the respondents is that as for as promotion to next post or abolishment of supernumerary post held by the petitioner on which she has been appointed or drawing the salary from State Budget will be a valid ground for seeking transfer outside the Valley as she is appointed under Prime Minister Special Package for the return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants to Kashmir Valley Scheme and as such governed by J &K Kashmiri Migrants (Special Drive Recruitment Rules, 2009). It is their main contention that petitioner is entitled to be transferred outside the Valley as the basic object the Scheme shall be defeated in doing so.