1 / 6 2025:CGHC:41926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5976 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Dilliwar S/o Late Kuber Singh Dilliwar Aged About 58 Years Presently Working As Training Officer, Trade- Electrician, Industrial Training Institute, Durg, Distt - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Government Industrial Training Institute, Durg, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Committee Of Senior Secretaries For Examination Of Transfer Cases Through Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/1), 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.20 11:33:22 +0530 2 / 6 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/3) and claimed the following reliefs in the writ petition:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble court may please to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 30/05/2025 (ANNEXURE-P-1) issued by respondent no.3 relieving the petitioner. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recommendation dated 05/05/2025 (ANNEXURE-P-2) made by respondent no.4. 10.4 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of transfer dated 20/03/2025 (ANNEXURE-P-3) transferring petitioner from Industrial Training Centre, Durg, District-Durg to Industrial Training Centre, Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue his services at the present place of posting at District Durg. 10.6 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Training Officer vide order dated 3 / 6 10.01.2013 and was posted at Industrial Training Institute, Jagdalpur. Since, the wife of the petitioner was posted as a Lecturer (LB) at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Thanaud, District Durg, he get himself transferred on his own request vide order dated 27.07.2016 and has been posted at Industrial Training Institute, Durg. Vide order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/3), he has been transferred from Industrial Training Institute, Durg to Industrial Training Institute, Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, against which he filed a WPS No. 2502 of 2025, which was disposed of on 15.04.2025 directing him to approach to the committee constituted by the State Government and to submit a representation there and the committee shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the policy of the State Government within the stipulated time frame and for the period of 30 days from the date of order dated 15.04.2025, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 was stayed. He would further submit that on 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/2), the committee has rejected the representation of the petitioner and on 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) the petitioner has been relieved for Industrial Training Institute, Ramchandrapur. The impugned orders have been passed in violation of the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2502 of 2025 and the grounds raised in the representation have not been considered. Without there being any administrative exigency, the petitioner has been transferred to Ramchandrapur. The petitioner has lost his major son on 24.08.2016 and his minor daughter is studying at Durg. His old aged mother is also at Durg, who needs the regular care. He has been transferred to about 750 KMs away from his present place of posting, and therefore, the impugned orders 4 / 6 are liable to be set-aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that after passing of the order dated 15.04.2025, the committee constituted for considering the representations of the employees against the transfer orders have rightly considered the representation of the petitioner, who found that there is no violation of any condition of transfer policy of the year 2022, which was applicable at that time, and on the administrative exigency and after due approval he has been transferred to Industrial Training Institute, Ramchandrapur. Though, the petitioner had challenged his transfer order on the ground of his personal difficulties and family problems, but the same is no ground for cancellation of transfer under the transfer policy of the year 2022 and has rejected the representation of the petitioner on 05.05.2025. She would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “SK Nausad Rahaman and others v. Union of India and others” 2022 (12) SCC 1. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner had challenged his transfer order dated 20.03.2025 in WPS No. 2502 of 2025, which was disposed of on 15.04.2025 directing him to make a representation before the committee constituted by the State Government within the stipulated time, who shall pass the necessary orders in accordance with the policy of the State Government considering the grievance of the petitioner. From 5 / 6 perusal of the representation of the petitioner, dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P/8), he would rely upon the earlier representation dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P/6) and prayed for a decision on the said representation dated 02.04.2025. In the said representation, the petitioner has claimed that his wife is posted at Durg, his old aged mother is residing at Durg and she needs regular care, he lost his son in the year 2016 and his minor daughter is studying at Durg. He basically challenged the transfer order on the ground of his personal difficulties and family problems. From the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the committee, constituted under the transfer policy of the year 2022, it transpires that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the committee on the ground that there is no provision in the transfer policy of the year 2022 to cancel the transfer on the basis of personal difficulty or family problem. His transfer is after due approval and on administrative exigency. The petitioner could not demonstrate the violation of any condition of transfer policy of the year 2022, which was the existing policy at that time. 6. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and 6 / 6 others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212, Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659 and also “SK Nausad Rahaman and others v. Union of India and others” 2022 (12) SCC 1]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 7. In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned orders dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure P/1), 05.05.2025 (Annexure P/2) and 20.03.2025 (Annexure P/3) are made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved