1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6962 of 2025 1 - Vikash Prashant Singh S/o Shri Narayan Pratap Singh Aged About 44 Years Working As Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Posted At Sub Division- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shri Abhishek Kumar Gupta Working As Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Posted At The Office Of Executive Engineer, Sub Division- Jashpur, District Jashpur(C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is Assistant Engineer and posted at Public Health and VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 10:59:31 +0530 2 Engineering (in short ‘PHE’), Sitapur Sub-Division has been transferred to PHE, Sakti Sub-Division. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, vide order dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner was transferred from PHE Surajpur Sub- Division to PHE Sitapur Sub-Division and within two years of his place of posting at Sitapur Sub-Division, he has been again transferred from Sitapur Sub-Division to Sakti Sub-Division by the impugned transfer order, which is violative of clause 3.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. He would further submit that the respondent No.2 Abhishek Kumar Gupta was transferred from the office of Executive Engineer, PHE Jashpur Division to PHE Sitapur Sub-Division on his own expenses and to accommodate him, the petitioner has been transferred from Sitapur Sub-Division showing his transfer on administrative exigencies, which cannot be done. The arbitrary action of the respondent No.1 clearly shows that the transfer of the petitioner is on the choice of the respondent No.2. He would also submit that the children of the petitioner are studying at class-10th and 11th at Ambikapur and in the mid-term transfer, their education would be badly affected and the transfer of the petitioner is against the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. Against his transfer order, he has made his representation to the transfer committee on 27/28.06.2025, as provided under clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, but the same has not been considered till date. He would also submit that on 04.07.2025, the petitioner has been ex-parte relieved from Sitapur Sub-Division. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is liable to be 3 quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. There is a complaint against the petitioner and his transfer was considered to be necessary and he has been transferred. As per clause 3.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, the employee can be transferred before two years of his posting, if any complaint is made against him. Further, the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative exigency, which is to be decided by the authorities concerned. The petitioner has already made his representation before the transfer committee under clause 8 of the Transfer Policy and it is for the authorities concerned to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner, and therefore, the legality of the transfer may not be examined in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Engineer, PHE Sitapur Sub-Division, is transferred on administrative exigency to Sakti Sub- Division. It transpires from the order dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P/2) that the petitioner was transferred to Sitapur Sub-Division and had joined there on 04.10.2023 (Annexure P/4). Clause 3.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 provided that the employees may not be transferred within two years of his earlier date of posting and it 4 is only after complaint is found prima facie true, he may be transferred, even prior to two years of his posting. As per the submission made by the State counsel, there was a complaint against the petitioner and in the public interest, his transfer was necessary. Whether or not, the complaint was found prima facie true, has to be considered by the authorities concerned while taking decision on his representation. The ground of administrative exigency is also to be considered by the authorities concerned looking to the requirement of work and available employees there at Sakti Sub-Division. Since the petitioner has already made his representation to the transfer committee on 27/28.06.2025 under clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, it is for the transfer committee to take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any scope of interference in the impugned transfer order at this stage, as the representation of the petitioner is already pending before the transfer committee. Therefore, the transfer committee is directed to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner dated 27/28.06.2025 (Annexure P/8) within 03 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in objective manner and in accordance with law, keeping the view of provisions of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order to the transfer committee within a week from today. 7. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, it is directed that no 5 coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the said transfer order dated 26.06.2025, till the decision of the transfer committee on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved