1 2025:CGHC:12218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8370 of 2024 1 - Maya Anchal W/o Shri Umashankar Lahre D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Anchal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Prasad, Post Police Station And Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Manatralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Dr. Jayanti Dewangan Tehsildar, Mungeli District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Rajendra Bharat, Tahsildar Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aakanksha Vishwakarma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned transfer order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P/12) so far as it relates to transfer of the petitioner, the relieving order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure P/17) and the order dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P/16) issued by respondent No. 1 whereby the representation made by the petitioner was rejected pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPS No. 6043 of 2024 and the petitioner may kindly be allowed to continue as the Tahsildar Pachpedhi, District Bilaspur, C.G. 10.2 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.” 2. Facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Nayab Tehsildar and was posted at Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. on 05.08.2016. The petitioner was discharging her duties 3 and obligations to the most satisfaction of her superiors and she has never gave a chance of under-performance on 14.08.2018, the petitioner was posted as In Charge Tahsildar Dharamjaigarh from Tahsil, Raigarh, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 14.08.2018, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 7. Thereafter, on 28.01.2019, the petitioner was posted at Tahsil, Raigarh from Tahsil, Dharamjaigarh, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 28.01.2019, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 2. Thereafter on 06.03.2019, the petitioner was posted at Tahsil, Pusaur from Tahsil, Raigarh, C.G. Thereafter on 18.11.2021, the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar, Tamnar from Tahsil Pusaur, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2021, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 3. Thereafter on 14.07.2022, the petitioner was posted at Land Records Branch Raigarh from Tahsil Tamnar, CG. In the aforesaid order dated 14.07.2022, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 1 . It is pertinent to mention here the fact that the petitioner has already served in the Scheduled area for a considerable time which is evident from the aforesaid orders. Thereafter on 30.09.2022, the services of the petitioner were transferred from District, Raigarh to District, Bilaspur, C.G. on administrative grounds. In the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2022, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 15. Thereafter petitioner has 4 joined her services at the transferred place of posting i.e. District- Bilaspur pursuant to the transfer order dated 30.09.2022. Thereafter vide order dated 15.11.2022, the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar Sipat, District- Bilaspur. Thereafter on 15.12.2023 the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar Pachpedhi, District- Bilaspur by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, vide impugned transfer order dated 13.09.2024, the services of the petitioner were transferred from District Bilaspur to District Uttar Bastar Kanker, CG. on administrative grounds. In the aforesaid order dated 13.09.2024, the name of the petitioner appears at serial No. 24. That, aggrieved with the transfer order dated 13.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 1, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No. 1 ventilating her grievances and praying that looking at the personal difficulties faced by her and recent frequent transfers; her transfer order may kindly be modified/altered considering his representation sympathetically. The petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. The petitioner was appointed as Nayab Tehsildar vide order dated 05.08.2016 and was posted as Nayab Tehsildar Raigarh. From time to time, the petitioner has been posted from one place to other and posting orders are also transfer orders within the definition of Rule 17 of Rule 9 (II) of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, 5 who is holding the post of Tehsildar and is presently posted at Tehsil- Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, has been transferred to District- North Bastar Kanker vide order dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P/12). It is submitted that the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. It is also stated that, against the order impugned, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6043/2024, wherein the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and in turn, the respondent authorities were directed to consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation but same was rejected on the ground that the transfer was made on account of administrative exigency. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same and has submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and no one is entitled to challenge the transfer order as a matter of right. 5. The petitioner Tahsildar can be transferred, the transferred orders are being passed in exigency of service and it is upon the employer to transfer an employee as per requirement and exigency of service. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the perusal of transfer order dated 13.09.2024 it appears that 6 the petitioner has been transferred from District- Bilaspur to District- Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. In the first round of litigation the petitioner has questioned the transfer order dated 13.09.2024 in WPS No. 6043/2024. Vide order dated 26.09.2024 passed in WPS No. 6043/2024, this Court was directed to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the concerned authorities and, in turn, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks and to pass appropriate orders on her representation. 8. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and thereafter in a thoughtful consideration of representation has been rejected by the Additional Secretary stating that the transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency and if the petitioner seeks any Child Care Leave then she should file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities. 9. The transfer order has been passed not only for the petitioner but by the same transfer order about 49 Tahsildars have been transferred on administrative exigency and that too considering the fact that in the Scheduled area there are requirements of Tahsildars, there is paucity of Tahsildars and they are required to be posted and accordingly on the basis of such order the Collector, District- Bilaspur has also passed an order relieving the petitioner to join at her transfered place i.e. District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker. 7 10. So far as grounds raised by the petitioner regarding frequent transfer is concerned upon perusal of the transfer order it seems that since 2016 the petitioner has been posted in District- Raigarh. Since year 2016 to year 2022 the petitioner has been posted at District- Raigarh and thereafter since year 2022 to year 2024 she was post at District- Bilaspur and as such it cannot be said that she is victim of frequent transfer. The other grounds raised by the petitioner that the fundamental rights have been violated in passing transfer order does not appeal to this Court. The petitioner cannot say that there is no administrative exigency in transferring her. The representation of the petitioner has been taken with due care and reasoned order has been passed on her representation and it was further in the said representation it has been stated that if the petitioner seeks Child Care Leave she may file appropriate application before the concerned authorities and as such in the considered opinion of this Court while deciding the representation each and every aspect has been dealt by the respondent authorities. 11.Considering the over all aspect of the matter I do not consider present to be a fit case for interfering into transfer orders passed by the respondent authorities as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The interim order passed earlier in favour of the petitioner is also 8 hereby vacated, however, if the petitioner seeks Child Care Leave, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate application before the concerned authorities and, in turn, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass appropriate reasoned order, looking to the factual aspect of the case in a pragmatic manner. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 14. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat