1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7490 of 2025 1 - Shibi Santosh Nair W/o Santosh Nair Aged About 47 Years At Present Posted And Working As Demonstrator At Government Nursing College, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Medical Education, Directorate At Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Naney Mukesh Prasad Posted As Demonstrator At Government Nursing College Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner (s) : Shri Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For State : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 22.07. 202 5 1. Challenge in this petition is the order of transfer dated 26.06.2025 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Bilaspur to Raigarh. 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. The petitioner was posted at Bilaspur only from 2022 whereas many other persons holding the same post have been posted at Bilaspur since 2016 and 2019 and therefore they ought to have been transferred first instead of petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned may be quashed. Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.26 14:23:00 +0530 2 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. On a specific query being made to the counsel for the petitioner, he fairly admits that in compliance of said transfer order the petitioner has already joined her duties at transferred place of posting and since then performing her 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 post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. 3 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