1 2025:CGHC:3187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 462 of 2025 Shyam Lal Naik S/o Late Siyaram Naik Aged About 61 Years R/o Bankimongra, Post Bankimongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh Posted as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Bankimongra, Post Bankimongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Livestock Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Jangde, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Lalit Jangde, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.23 11:36:46 +0530 2 2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India who was working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Bankimongra, Post Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.) in the respondents/department and has been transferred to Pig Farming Field Area, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.). By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned transfer order dated 08.01.2025, (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner, issued by the respondent authorities. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners may kindly be passed.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer at Veterinaty Hospital, Bankimongra, Post- Bankimongra, Dist- Korba (C.G) and is delivering his services efficiently. The petitioner has been entered in service in Livestock Development Department on 25.03.1985 and his date of birth is 03.07.1963. The petitioner is on the verge of retirement. On 31.07.2025, the petitioner would attain the age of superannuation i.e after about 6 months. Even then the respondent authorities transferred the petitioner from Veterinary Hospital, Bankimongra, Post- Bankimongra, Dist- Korba (C.G) to 3 Pig Farming Field Area, Kunkuri, Dist- Jashpur (C.G). The distance between the present posting place and transferred place is about 300 kms. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a heart patient and his treatment is going on at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. The petitioner underwent Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) with Stent in the year 2013 and is continuously under medical supervision till date. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present petitioner is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Bankimongra, Post Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.) in the respondents/Department and he has only six months to retire. He specifically submits that petitioner is going to retire in on 31.07.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient and his treatment is going on at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur as also he underwent Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) with Stent in the year 2013 and is continuously under medical supervision till date. It has been submitted that as he has only six months left for superannuation and no administrative exigency would be served, as such, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) seems to have been issued in a most highhanded and illegal manner without having due regard to the statutory provisions of law, which needs to be quashed. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition submitting that impugned order is well merited. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. It is true that Transfer Policy stipulates that those officer/employees who are to be superannuated within one year usually, would not be subjected to transfer in normal course, meaning thereby under normal circumstances or usual course, they may retire from the place where they are working if they have one year to retire. In the present case, almost six months are left for petitioner to retire. What was the dire administrative need which compelled the respondents/State to transfer an employee when six months are left for petitioner to retire. Such an attempt rendered the case of respondents doubtful. If petitioner was not performing the duties properly then other options were available including some stringent measures but if at the fag end of his tenure, employee sent on transfer then it is difficult for him to collect the pension papers and make preparation of Pension Payment Orders. Besides that, at the fag end of his career, he has to take care of his retirement, coupled with the other family issues to resolve. As a model employer, it is the duty of the State to look into the said exigencies. 5 8. What public purpose would be served, if petitioner is posted at different place for six months because that time would be consumed by him for getting acclimatized with the new surroundings and would lose interest in performance of public duties effectively. On this count, it appears that attempt of respondents is contrary to principle of public policy. 9. In the instant case, petitioner who is working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the respondents/department since 25.03.1985. On close scrutiny, it appears that any administrative exigency would not be served if the petitioner is transferred for six months at such a distant place, where petitioner would not be able to coordinate for preparation of his pension related papers. 10. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also considering the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner is a heart patient and his treatment is going on at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur as also he underwent Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) with Stent. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when petitioner is left with such little time to retire, then insistence of the respondents/State to transfer the employee appears to be misplaced against public policy as well as the guidelines by way of transfer policy and tainted with trappings of extraneous 6 consideration because no ground has been referred for transfer except administrative reasons, which ought be based upon some sound purpose and thoughtfulness. 12. Resultantly, writ petition stands allowed and impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. The petitioner is allowed to perform his duties at his present place of posting till his superannuation i.e. on 31.07.2025. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh