1 2025:CGHC:19250-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 268 of 2025 Keshaw Prasad Lahare S/o Shri R. R. Lahare Aged About 52 Years Post- Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. R/o G- Type Quarter, Rest House Campus, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Deputy Secretary Public Works Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Lalit Kumar Bhoi Working As Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3/Caveator : Mr. Amrit Das and Mr. Arham Siddiqui, Advocates. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.30 11:11:33 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 .04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State and Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3/Caveator along with Mr. Arham Siddiqui, learned counsel. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 626 of 2025 (Keshaw Prasad Lahare vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is substantively holding the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. The appellant was initially appointed on 02.08.2008 as Assistant Engineer in the Department and was subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He became eligible for promotion in 2016. Considering his seniority, he was transferred to the position of In-Charge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Champa by order dated 17.05.2021. The appellant was transferred again by order dated 28.09.2022 from the position of Executive Engineer, Division Champa to the National Highway Division, Sukma. However, this order was modified 3 by order dated 30.09.2022 transferring the appellant to the ofÏce of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone. Subsequently, the State Government issued another transfer order within 08 months transferring the appellant as In-Charge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Champa. The appellant joined the transferred place and sincerely discharged his duties. Meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee convened a meeting to consider eligible Assistant Engineers for promotion, including the appellant. As a result, the appellant was promoted on 14.10.2024. After promotion, the services of the appellant has been transferred as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Surajpur, District Surajpur vide order dated 30.11.2024. The appellant was relieved from his previous posting on 06.12.2024 and immediately joined his new posting in Surajpur on the same day. However, on 17.01.2025, the respondents issued the impugned transfer order transferring the appellant from Division Surajpur to the ofÏce of the Chief Engineer, Bilaspur within just 48 days after joining at Surajpur. The appellant has already joined the new posting and is discharging his duties. The impugned transfer order appears to have been passed to accommodate respondent No. 3. This transfer order violates the circular dated 03.06.2015 and the transfer policy dated 12.08.2022. The State Government issued a transfer policy on 12.08.2022 outlining the conditions under which government/public servants may be transferred. The policy, approved by the Council of Ministers, states that only those government servants who were posted on or before 15.08.2021 and have completed at least one year of service at their current posting are eligible for transfer. Additionally, the State 4 Government issued a policy for transfers and postings in Scheduled Areas, published in the circular dated 03.06.2015. This policy specifies that public servants posted in Scheduled Areas must serve at least three years before being transferred, unless a complaint is lodged against them. In the present case, the appellant has been made a scapegoat by transferring him within just 48 days to accommodate respondent No. 3. Reliable sources indicate that respondent No. 3 place of resident is in Kunkuri, District Jashpur, and sought a posting in Jashpur, Patthalgaon or Surajpur. Respondent No. 03 succeeded in achieving this goal by securing the appellant’s transfer. Therefore, the impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the previous transfer was on administrative grounds and not on his personal request to which appellant duly complied with, but since the transfer order dated 17.01.2025 was issued within 48 days just after his joining and shifting with entire house hold articles. He further submits that the transfer order dated 17.01.2025 violates transfer policy of the State, which mandates that a government servant must complete at least one year of service at a station before being transferred. But, in the present case, the appellant was transferred within 48 days of his joining at current post, making the transfer order dated 17.01.2025 arbitrary and in violation of transfer policy. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge ought to have held that, what administrative exigency arose within 48 days of appellant’s transfer and joining for which the State was compelled to pass transfer order dated 17.01.2025. 5 Moreover, there is neither mention of any specific reason due to which administrative exigency arise, nor any change in the circumstance except to accommodate respondent No. 3. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.03.2025 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3/caveator submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. They further submit that on a close scrutiny of the documents filed along with the writ petition it is amply clear that the petitioner has always obtained postings of interest in his service with the respondent department and thus he was transferred on various places. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that the post of the Executive Engineer in the respondent Public Works Department is a disbursing post that has various financial powers and responsibilities and transactions of huge amount are sanctioned through the seal and sign of the Executive Engineer of the division. Thus, the administration being well aware of the integrity of the petitioner posted him in the ofÏce of the Chief Engineer, Bilaspur, where technical duties would be taken from the petitioner and thus, the transfer is purely in administrative interest as well as public interest. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 8. While passing the impugned order learned Single Judge held that 6 the transfer is an exigency of service and the appellant being a government servant cannot escape from being transferred by the department in view of the requirement and administrative exigency arising from time to time. Having considered the grounds raised by the appellant and the contentions put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court does not find any cogent ground to interfere with the transfer order of the appellant. There is nothing to hold the transfer of the appellant to be improper. Further, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.01.2025 staying the effect and operation of the order of transfer with regard to the appellant is rightly vacated. 9. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan