1 2025:CGHC:2711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 415 of 2025 1 - Ghanshyam Dhruw S/o Shri Heera Singh Dhruw Aged About 61 Years 6 Months, Occupation Service, Posted As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (Assistant Grade- I I I), Veterinary Hospital Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund, R/o- Barunda Bazar, Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund, C.G. (Correct Name Mentioned) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Livestock Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Of Veterinary Health Services, Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Health Services, Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Government Advocate Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the order impugned dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P- 1) which relates to transfer of petitioner services. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is due for retirement in near future i.e. 31st July, 2025, whereas by the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 the petitioner has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Tumgaon, District Mahasamund to Veterinary Hospital, Harrai, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur. He would further submit that the transfer order is against the policy of the Government which has been framed by the State Government with regard to transfer employee. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that even if the petitioner will be transferred, there would be no difficulty in 3 granting permission and other retiral benefits. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is due for retirement in near future i.e. 31.07.2025 for which only 6 months are left, the transfer order cannot be in accordance with law as the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 31.07.2025. It is also well settled position that at the verge of retirement of the employee, normally the Government should not issue transfer orders unless there is extreme exigency, as documentation with regard to releasing the retiral benefits of the employee will be adversely affected on account of transfer. 6. As such, the impugned transfer order is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner attains the age of superannuation on 31.07.2025. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 08.01.2025 in respect of the petitioner is hereby quashed. 8. No order as to cost. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi