1 2025:CGHC:32307 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6016 of 2025 1 - Snehlata Raju W/o Pankaj Panchal Aged About 37 Years Working As Store Clerk (Incharge) In The Office Of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Kondagaon (C.G.) R/o R.E.S. Colony, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Engineer Indravati Project Board, Jagdalpur Dist- Jadalpur Baster (C.G.) 3 - Executive Engineer T.D.P.P. Water Resources, Division, Jagdalpur Dist- Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Engineer Department Of Mahanadi Reservoir Project, Water Resources Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Department Of Water Resources, Kondagaon Dist. - Kondagaon (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.11 16:49:50 +0530 2 27/06/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner is temporarily posted at the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bijapur, on administrative exigency and claimed the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to come with all the records in the present case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to set aside the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent no.2 in the interest of Justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is employed as Store clerk and was posted at the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Narayanpur. Vide order dated 20.11.2024, she was temporarily posted at the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Water Resources Survey Sub-Division, Kondagaon, on her own request on the ground of her health condition. Presently, the said order dated 20.11.2024 has been modified and in view of administrative exigency and shortage of staff at the office of Executive 3 Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bijapur, the petitioner was temporarily posted there at Bijapur under the internal office management, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. He would further submit that the petitioner was initially transferred to Kondagaon from Narayanpur vide order dated 20.11.2024 and within 07 months, she has again been transferred from Kondagaon to Bijapur. The petitioner is having various health issues and responsibilities of two minor children. There is no complaint against her. Considering her health condition, she was being transferred from Narayanpur to Kondagaon, but presently she has again been transferred to Bijapur, where no proper medical facility is available, and therefore, the impugned transfer order may be quashed. 1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that, it is only under the internal office management, the petitioner is posted at the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bijapur. Her posting is temporary and on administrative exigency and also in view of the rationalization of the staff there. Even if the petitioner has considered the order dated 13.06.2025 is a transfer order, she has an alternative remedy to approach before the transfer committee constituted under clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner being a government servant, cannot claim to be posted at a particular place and in view of administrative exigency, she can be posted wherever her services are required, therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 3. The petitioner, who is working as Store clerk was temporarily posted at the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Water Resources Survey Sub-Division, Kondagaon considering her health condition under the internal office management vide order dated 20.11.2024. Her posting there at Kondagaon was temporarily and till further order, thereafter, considering the shortage of staff and exigency of work at Bijapur, she has been temporarily posted at the office of Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Bijapur under the internal office management. Although it may not be a transfer, but internal office management, and even if the petitioner considered it to be a transfer and there is a violation of condition of transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, she has an alternative remedy to raise her grievance by making her representation before the transfer committee constituted under clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). 4. 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. 5 Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. 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. 5. 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 order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved