1 2025:CGHC:33122 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7085 of 2025 1 - Jhadi Bairandam S/o Jhadi Lachhma Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted As Teacher (LB) Government Middle School Padmur, Block And District- Bijapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division Bastar Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4 - Collector District- Bijapur (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate. For State : Shri Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 15.07. 202 5 1. Challenge in this petition is the order of transfer dated 02.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Block Usur to Block Bijapur under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of transfer has been issued without any administrative exigency and therefore the same be bad in law. Less than two year remains for retirement of the petitioner and therefore as per guidelines issued by Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.28 17:12:38 +0530 2 the State Govt. the petitioner should not have been transferred at the fag end of his service career. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. 3. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that the petitioner was declared surplus Teacher under the Rationalization Instructions dated 02.08.2024 and has been transferred to other place. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 4. On a specific query being made to the counsel for the petitioner, she fairly admits that in compliance of said transfer order the petitioner has already joined his duties at transferred place of posting and since then performing his duties at the transferred place. 5. A person aggrieved by the order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with the same. If the workman had any grievance, he could have availed of his remedy available against the same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to comply with the same. Failure to avail of any remedy also would mean that he had accepted the order and was duty- bound to comply with the same (See-U.P. Singh Versus Punjab National Bank” reported in 2023 INSC 1077). Further, it is also settled law that once an order of transfer issued and acted upon, it is spent its force. Thereafter, no substantive part remains to be stayed or rescinded and any order to that effect is redundant. 6. Even otherwise, 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 3 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, 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]. 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 order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder