2025:CGHC:32781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6933 of 2025 Dr. Ramprasad Tirkey S/o Late Shri Maniram Tirkey Aged About 47 Years Working As Medical Officer (Incharge Block Medical Officer ) Community Health Centre Rajpur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department. Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Balrampur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri DN Prajapati, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri S Choubey, PL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Petitioner has filed present petition with the following reliefs: “ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P1) so far it relates to petitioner and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to continue at this present place of posting. 10.2 that, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” Wps 6933 of 2025 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P1), petitioner, who is a Medical Officer, has been transferred from the Community Health Centre, Rajpur, District-Balrampur-Ramanujgant to the Community Health Centre, Biharpur, Surajpur. At the time of passing of order, the basis of transfer has been shown as ‘self expenses’, whereas the petitioner has never moved any application for his transfer to any other place from his present place of posting. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer is erroneous. He would further submit that petitioner has been transferred from Balrampur to Surajpur, which is from one scheduled area to another scheduled area, which also cannot be done in the present case, and therefore, the impugned order may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that due to typographical mistake, the basis of transfer of the petitioner has been shown as ‘self expenses’ in the impugned transfer order, and when the authority came to know their mistake, now they are going to correct it, and the same would be done within a week. He would further submit that petitioner is also have alternative remedy to raise his grievance before the Transfer Committee as provided under Clause-8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. He would further submit that there is no document annexed with the petition with respect to violation of any condition that the petitioner cannot be transferred from one scheduled area to another. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the State that due to typographical mistake, the basis of transfer of the petitioner has been shown as ‘self expenses’ in the impugned transfer order, which they are going to correct within a week. Further, that an alternative remedy under Clause-8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 is available to the petitioner to raise his grievances, this Court is not Wps 6933 of 2025 3 inclined to entertain present writ petition at this stage, and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Transfer Committee, if he wants to do so. Further, there is no document annexed with the petition with respect to violation of any condition of Transfer Policy, that the petitioner cannot be transferred from one scheduled area to another, and also there is no appropriate pleading with that respect in the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail his alternative remedy, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.07.15 14:24:20 +0530