1 2025:CGHC:37813 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7731 of 2023 Dilip Kumar Bhagat S/o. Late Shri Lalo Ram Bhagat, Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Former Welfare And Bio- Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Dy. Director, Agriculture, Jashpur, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Shri Ghanshyam Lal Sahu, Under Secretary, The Secretary, Agriculture Development And Formar Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The Secretary, Seniors Secretaries, General Administration Department, State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Smt. Yogyata Singh, Working As Assistant Soil Conservation Officer At Office Of Dy. Director, Agriculure District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:46 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, 20.04.2023, and order dated 22.05.2023, 17.08.2023.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at Jashpur, was promoted and posted at his current station by order dated 02.05.2022, and took charge on 22.05.2023. However, by impugned order dated 11.01.2023, he has been transferred to another Scheduled Area Pratappur, District Surajpur despite having served over 24 years exclusively in Scheduled Areas. It is submitted that as per the State Government’s policy dated 03.06.2015, an employee who has completed 2 years in Core Scheduled Area or 3 years in General Scheduled Area is entitled to a posting outside Scheduled Area. The transfer order is therefore in violation of this policy and is arbitrary, especially when the petitioner has completed only nine months at his present post and no replacement has been posted in his place. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s earlier representations were rejected without proper consideration. The committee refused to examine his case citing lack of jurisdiction, and respondent No.1 also rejected his representation without addressing the petitioner’s long-standing service in Scheduled Areas or the short tenure at his present posting. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 11.01.2023, 20.04.2023, 22.05.2023, and 3 17.08.2023 are liable to be quashed being arbitrary, contrary to the transfer policy, and not in public interest. 3 Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2023, the petitioner was granted protection from any coercive action in relation to the impugned transfer order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/4). The Court had specifically directed that, until further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 5 It is submitted that in view of the said interim protection, the petitioner has continued to work at his original place of posting, i.e., Office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jashpur, and no steps have been taken by the respondents thereafter to enforce the transfer order. As a result, the petitioner has remained at his previous posting and has been allowed to discharge his duties without interruption. 6 Learned counsel further submits that with the passage of time, the situation has remained unchanged and the impugned order has not been acted upon. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not press for any further relief at this stage, and submits that the petition has become infructuous. 4 7 It is, however, submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law, in the event any fresh order affecting his posting is passed in future. 8 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous, with liberty as prayed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh