1 2025:CGHC:35146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8592 of 2023 Ramrup Markam S/o Late Somari Ram Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted At The Office Of The Janpad Panchayat Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Collector District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 4 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 4 and Mr. Atul Kumar YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.26 11:26:49 +0530 2 Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “1] That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the present case. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned transfer order dated 21-09-2023 (ANNEXURE P/1), passed by the respondent No.2 in respect of the petitioner. 3] that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the respondents. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its interim order dated 20.10.2023, has been granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioner in respect of the transfer order dated 21.09.2023. In view of the said interim protection, the petitioner is presently continuing at his original place of posting. It has been contended that impugned transfer order dated 21.09.2023 has been passed in clear violation of the service conditions applicable to Panchayat 3 Karmis, particularly Clause 8, which mandates that transfer can only be effected on the basis of a complaint and recommendation by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Janpad Panchayat. In the present case, there exists no complaint, no enquiry, and no recommendation, rendering the order illegal and unsustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner has served his entire tenure in scheduled areas, and as per the Government policy dated 03.06.2015, he is entitled to preferential posting to a general area. The present transfer, again to a scheduled area, is arbitrary and in violation of the said policy. The transfer also contravenes the Transfer Policy dated 12.08.2022, which discourages transfers in the absence of administrative exigency or misconduct, neither of which is present in this case. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be quashed, and the petitioner be allowed to continue at his present place of posting. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respective respondents 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 20.10.2023, which reads as follows:- 4 “Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.01/2023, application for grant of ad interim writ. Learned State Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply of petition as well as I.A. No.01/2023. List this petition after two weeks. Purely as an interim measure, it is directed that impugned order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 21.09.2023 primarily on the grounds of arbitrariness and malafide, contending that the said transfer was issued not on any genuine administrative grounds and while passing of such transfer order Rule 27 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 has not been taken into consideration. It is further noted that this Court had already granted interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 20.10.2023, staying the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order. In view of such protection, the petitioner has continued to work at his original place of posting. 8. This Court has further observed that while transfer is an incident of service and within the domain of the employer’s administrative 5 discretion, such power must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with settled norms and policies. Frequent transfers within a short span of time, particularly without compelling administrative justification, adversely affect the service conditions and morale of public servants and such actions cannot be sustained in the absence of a sound administrative rationale. 9. Considering the facts of this case, by the efflux of time, it appears that the impugned transfer order dated 21.09.2023 has lost its efficacy. Accordingly, while holding the said order as arbitrary and unsustainable, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the State to pass fresh and appropriate orders in respect of the transfer of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, rules, and the prevailing transfer policy, if the administrative exigency so warrants. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh