1 2025:CGHC:21984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3401 of 2025 1 - Pritam Ogrey S/o Shri S.C. Ogrey Aged About 43 Years R/o Kera Road, Near Civil Line Police Station, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Controller Directorate Of Food And Drugs Administration, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director Food And Drugs Administration Department, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Director Food And Drugs Administration Department, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.13 16:52:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/05/2025 1. This Petition has been filed against the transfer order dated 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby, the petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Drug Controller, has been transferred from Janjgir- Champa to Jashpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a physical disabled person suffering from flatfeet and on account of the said disability, the District Medical Board, Korba has assessed his disability to the extent of 55% vide certificate dated 04.12.2008. He submits that as per Section 20(5) of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (for short, “the Act, 2016”), the appropriate Government is under obligation for framing policies for posting and transfer of employees with disabilities, so the every government establishment shall provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate barrier free and conducive environment to employees with disabilities. He would further submit that even the administrative exigency lies in posting a Regular Assistant Drug Controller at Janjgir-Champa for the reason that Janjgir-Champa has more than 1000 medical shops, whereas, Jashpur has only about 200-250 medical shops. Further, two girl children of the petitioner are studying at Bilaspur and they are living with his mother-in-law at Bilaspur and his father and mother are old age persons living in District Janjgir-Champa. Considering these grounds, the petitioner may be accommodated at a place nearby Janjgir-Champa. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State would oppose the aforesaid submission and submits that the petitioner has been posted for the last 9 years at Janjgir-Champa. He submits that the post is of the State cadre and the petitioner ought to be transferred anywhere in the State. However, he has completed about 1/3 of his service in his home district. He further submits that the second ground taken by the petitioner is also not acceptable, as he himself has stated that he falls under the category of special person, therefore, he has to be reasonably accommodated according to the terms of the Act, 2016. He would further submit that, in view of the submission put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, in Jashpur, there is light work in comparison to Janjgir- Champa. Hence, he prays to dismiss this Petition. 4. Heard the submissions put forth by counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the Petition carefully. 5. In the matter of National Hydroelectric Power vs. Corporation Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 574, it has been reiterated that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration and the relevant para 5 reads thus: “5. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to which our attention has been 4 invited to, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any transfer of the employees from one Office or Project or Unit to any one of the other as long as the seniority of such an employee is protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse 5 consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken to which the respondents have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we see no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance.” 6. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and considering the principle laid down in the matter of National Hydroelectric Power (supra), as the petitioner has been posted at Janjgir-Champa for the past 9 years and considering the grounds taken by him, this Court does not find any merit or substance in this Petition. 7. Resultantly, this Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh representation, which, in turn, shall be decided by the concerned authority strictly in accordance with law and rules and also the administrative exigency without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. If the said representation is filed within a period of 2 months, the concerned authority shall decide the same within a period of the next 4 months. 8. Accordingly, all the pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka