1 2025:CGHC:36250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8573 of 2023 Bhedu Prasad Sahu S/o Shri S.L. Sahu Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Office O/o Sr. Agriculture Development Officer, Block, Gurur, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer Dist- Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Raj Shengale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ankur Kashyap, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.07.29 18:49:30 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned orders dated 04.10.2023 r/w. 30.09.2022 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue at the present place of posting. 10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and has been discharging his duties with diligence and integrity ever since his initial appointment in the year 2012. He was posted at Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.), and was later transferred to his present place of posting on 29.08.2017. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 30.09.2022, purportedly on his own request, from his present place of posting to the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Gariyaband (C.G.). However, it is most respectfully submitted that no such request was ever made by the petitioner, and the mention of such request is factually incorrect and misleading. Upon coming to know of the said erroneous transfer order, the petitioner promptly submitted a representation dated 07.10.2022, clearly stating that he had never requested for any transfer and prayed for cancellation of the said order. This 3 representation was further endorsed and supported by the office of the Co-operative and Industries, Zila Panchayat, Balod (C.G.), vide letter dated 10.10.2022. It is further submitted that the Additional Director, Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.), upon due consideration, vide communication dated 26.09.2023, had forwarded the petitioner’s representation with a positive recommendation for cancellation of the transfer. Learned counsel submits that despite such official endorsement and recommendation, the petitioner was suddenly relieved from his duties at the present place of posting vide impugned order dated 04.10.2023, making reference to the year-old transfer order dated 30.09.2022. It is submitted that the impugned relieving order is clearly arbitrary, mechanical and passed without any justification, especially when no officer has been posted to replace the petitioner. It has been argued that the impugned order appears to be issued in a whimsical and high-handed manner, particularly when the petitioner has continued to work at his present posting without interruption and was regularly disbursed salary until the date of the relieving order. This shows acquiescence and implied approval of the authorities with regard to the petitioner’s continuation. It is further submitted that the act of relieving the petitioner after nearly one year from the date of transfer, and that too in face of positive recommendations for cancellation, defeats the principles of fairness and administrative propriety. The respondents’ action is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the 4 Constitution of India and deserves judicial scrutiny. In view of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel prays that the impugned orders dated 04.10.2023 and 30.09.2022 may kindly be quashed, and the petitioner be allowed to continue at his present place of posting, with all consequential benefits. 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 20.10.2023 to the effect that “the Petitioner is permitted to continue his work at his old place of posting till the next date of hearing.” 7. Upon a thorough consideration of the pleadings and submissions advanced by the parties, and having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioner was shown to have been transferred vide order dated 30.09.2022 on his own request, which the petitioner has categorically denied, and which is unsupported by any material on record, this Court finds merit in the contention that the said transfer order was passed on incorrect factual premises. 8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had immediately submitted a representation dated 07.10.2022, asserting that no such transfer was ever sought by him. The said representation 5 was duly endorsed by competent authorities, including the Zila Panchayat, Balod, and was further recommended positively by the Additional Director, Agriculture, Raipur, vide communication dated 26.09.2023. Despite this, the petitioner was suddenly relieved from his place of posting by the impugned order dated 04.10.2023, without any fresh administrative development or replacement being made. 9. The conduct of the respondents in mechanically enforcing a stale transfer order, nearly one year after its issuance, that too without any exigency or replacement, appears to be arbitrary and lacking in bonafides. Such action, particularly when the petitioner had continued to work at the original posting with regular salary and without objection for a prolonged period, violates the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and good governance. 10. In light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 and 04.10.2023 deserve to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.09.2022 and 04.10.2023, to the extent they relate to the transfer and relieving of the petitioner, are quashed. 12. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the State/respondent authorities from passing fresh orders of transfer in respect of the petitioner, in accordance with law and applicable 6 service rules/policies, if genuine administrative exigency so arises in future. 13. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh