1 2025:CGHC:34473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7879 of 2025 1 - Suvina David W/o Alok Raj David Aged About 54 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Posted And Working As Nursing Sister, 220 Bedded District Hospital, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.), R/o Ward No.-18, In front Of Sai Mandir, Civil Lines, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner-Cum-Director Health Services, Block-1, Third Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 5 - Anupama Singh Nursing Sister, District Hospital, Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 12:27:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 21/07/2025 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 a Nursing Sister and posted at Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur has been transferred to District Hospital, Baikunthpur, District Koriya on administrative exigency. 2. The State Government in its transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 provided an in-house remedy under clause 8 to approach before the transfer committee for redressal of the grievances of the employees against transfer, but the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedy before the said transfer committee and learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter on merits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has forego her promotion, which was made vide order dated 22.02.2022 in view to remain there at Community Health Centre, Manendragarh as her husband is already posted at Middle School, Barkela (Manendragarh). There is violation of clause 3.13 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025 and the posting of the petitioner has been made at another place than her husband is posted. Against her transfer order, she has already made her revenue records on 30.06.2025, but the same has not been considered till date. There is vacant available post at 220 bedded hospital at Manendragarh, therefore, her transfer order 3 dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) may be quashed. 4. 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. The petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency. Though the petitioner has submitted that she has made a representation on 30.06.2025 before the transfer committee, but there is no acknowledgment of any authority in the said representation therefore, it cannot be said without verifying the records that she actually made her representation. Even otherwise, the grievance of the petitioner and violation of condition of transfer policy are to be considered by the transfer committee, but the petitioner is not willing to pursue her remedy before the transfer committee and this Court has limited jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the transfer of the employees. The petitioner on her own, forgo her promotion and now she cannot claim benefit of the same. Further, the petitioner has been relieved from Community Health Centre, Manendragarh on 27.06.2025. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to violation of clause 3.13 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, by which the petitioner has been transferred to another place than the posting of her husband. Clause 3.13 of the said transfer policy give discretion to the authorities 4 concerned to post the husband and wife at the same place as practically as possible, if they made request. In the present case, even though there is no acknowledgment in the representation of the petitioner allegedly made on 30.06.2025, but as per the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, she does not want to pursue her remedy before the transfer committee, and therefore, this Court while examining the merits of the case, does not find any scope of interference in the transfer of the petitioner. Merely forgoing the earlier promotion order, does not make her entitle to be remained there at a particular place of her posting subject to administrative exigency. 7. It is a trite law that 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. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and 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]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 5 8. 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 ved