1 2025:CGHC:32453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7000 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushila Shyam W/o Shri Rajaram Shyam Aged About 58 Years Working On The Post Of Supervisor, Sector- Kochli, Integrated Child Development Project- Balrampur, Woman And Child Development, Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Director, Directorate Woman And Child Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - The District Programme Officer, District Woman And Child Development Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj C.G. 5 - Smt. Anita Kanwar, Supervisor, Integrated Child Development Project, Katghora, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri VK Pandey, Advocate. For State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 11.07. 202 5 1. The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Balrampur, District Balrampur to Tamnar, District Raigarh. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.14 11:08:58 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action on part of the respondents is violative of transfer policy and circular dated 03.06.2015. The petitioner has been transferred from one Scheduled area to another Scheduled Area. If the said transfer order is acted upon, she would face great difficulty in joining the transferred place of posting as her husband has taken compulsory retirement on account of certain ailment and solely dependent upon the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 3. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that the order of transfer has been issued on administrative exigency looking into requirement of work in different offices of the State Govt. under the respondents. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the entire factual matrix of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the transfer committee constituted under Clause-8 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 by making suitable representation before the said committee and the Committee, in turn, shall decide the representation on its own merit as early as possible. 5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder