1 2025:CGHC:36249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8293 of 2023 Salik Ram Dansena S/o Late S. R. Dansena Aged About 60 Years Deputy Ranger And Presently Working As Assistant Ranger Officer Devpur, Forest Division Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur Circle, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Balodabazar,, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Nitin Nayak, Forester, Posted In Division Office Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:33 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06-10-2023 (Annexure P-1) 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has rendered more than three decades of unblemished service in the Forest Department, having been initially appointed as a Forest Guard on 02.01.1990 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, and subsequently promoted as Forester in the year 2014 and as Assistant Range Officer in August 2020. It is submitted that the petitioner was working diligently as In-charge Range Officer at Mahasamund when he was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.09.2021. However, the said suspension was revoked vide order dated 29.01.2022, and he was posted to Balodabazar Forest Division, where he gave his joining on 25.02.2022. It is further submitted that by order dated 09.12.2022, the petitioner was again transferred and posted as Assistant Range Officer, Devpur Range, in place of respondent No.5, who was under suspension at the relevant time. It is submitted that within a short span of less than 10 months, the petitioner has again been transferred to Kasdol (Production Range) by impugned order dated 06.10.2023, and respondent No.5 has been reinstated and posted in place of 3 the petitioner at Devpur Range. Such frequent transfers are arbitrary and not in the interest of administrative exigency. Learned counsel submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malice in law and is punitive in nature, as no cogent reason has been assigned for displacing the petitioner within such a short interval. It is also relevant to note that the transfer is not in conformity with the Transfer Policy of the State Government, which discourages transfers within a short period unless warranted by compelling reasons. It is further contended that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat merely to accommodate respondent No.5, who was earlier under suspension and is now being given preferential posting without justification. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 is liable to be quashed, and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated at his earlier place of posting, i.e., Devpur Range. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 16.10.2023 to the effect that “both the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date, till the next date of hearing.” 4 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into consideration that the petitioner was transferred vide impugned order dated 06.10.2023, which was stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 16.10.2023, and the petitioner has continued to discharge his duties at the earlier place of posting pursuant to the said stay, it is evident that by efflux of time, the transfer order has lost its operative effect and has become otiose. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-1), so far as it relates to the transfer of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 9. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the State/respondent authorities from passing appropriate orders of transfer in respect of the petitioner in future, if administrative exigency so warrants, in accordance with law and the prevailing transfer policy. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh