1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4181 of 2025 1 - Dhal Singh Bisen S/o Shri Nemichand Bisen Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deput Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries For Examination Of Transfer Cases Through Under Secretary General Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate. For State : Shri Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 13.06. 202 5 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging and impugning the recommendation dated 05.05.2025 of the Transfer Committee and order dated 15.05.2025 whereby, the Transfer Committee has rejected the representation of the petitioner which has been made against his transfer order. 2. The petitioner, working as Naib Tahsildar was transferred vide order dated 10.03.2025. Earlier, he filed WPS No.1886 of 2025 before this Court, which has been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.03.2025 with the following observation: 2 “5. Perusal fo the policy dated 03.06.2015 shows that persons aged above 55 years should not be posted at Core Scheduled Area and in the present case the petitioner is aged about 58 years and is posted at Bijapur which is a core scheduled area. 6. Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to approach the committee within 5 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with a representation along with the order of this court and the Committee constituted as per order dated 03.03.2025 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the policy of the State government specifically clause 1.5 and 1.6 of the policy dated 03.06.2015 within a further period of 25 days and till then the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed.” 3. Subsequent to the above order, the matter travelled to the Transfer Committee for its consideration in light of Circular dated 03.06.2015, issued by the State Government, and also in light of the Transfer Policy of the year 2022. However, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Transfer Committee by its recommendation dated 05.05.2025, and the order dated 30.05.2025, which are under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that although the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Transfer Committee, however, there is no consideration of Circular dated 03.06.2015 while considering the case of the petitioner by the Committee, whereas, in light of order dated 03.042025, the Transfer Committee should have considered the Circular dated 03.06.2015 issued by the State Government, and there is no consideration in the recommendation made by the Committee dated 05.05.2025 that they have considered the Circular dated 03.06.2015. Therefore, the case may be remitted back to the Transfer Committee to decide the representation afresh in light of Circular dated 03.06.2015 issued by the State Government, and also in view of Transfer Policy, 2022. 3 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes and would submit that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the Rules and Circulars, the Transfer Committee has passed the order, which needs no interference by this court. 6. From perusal of recommendation dated 05.05.2025 of the Transfer Committee, it appears that there is no consideration of Circular dated 03.06.2015, and it is only reflects in para-3 that they have examined the case of the petition in light of the Transfer Policy, 2022, and rejected the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court deem it appropriate to remit the matter back tot he Transfer Committee to decide the petitioner’s representation afresh in light of the Circular dated 03.06.2015, as well as the Transfer Policy, 2022, and shall pass a reasoned order afresh. 7. Accordingly, impugned recommendation dated 05.05.2025 and order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P1) are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Transfer Committee to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh on its own merits in light of Circular 03.06.2015, issued by the State Government, as well as the Transfer Policy, 2022, and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a further period of 30 days from today. 8. Till decision of the Transfer Committee, the impugned transfer order shall remain inoperative. 9. With aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder