1 2025:CGHC:52376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12202 of 2025 Smt. Radha Bhai W/o Shri Devnarayan Bhai Aged About 48 Years Working On The Post Of Supervisor, Sector - Kerta, Integrated Child Development Project - Balrampur, Woman And Child Development Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Committee Of Senior Secretaries For Redressal Of Transfer, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Woman And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Director Directorate, Woman And Child Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 6. The Collector Balrampur Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 7. The District Program Officer District Woman And Child Development Department, Balrampur, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2025 by which she has been transferred from Integrated Child Development Project Balrampur to Integrated Child Development Project Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi on administravtive ground. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned transfer order is against the transfer policy issued by the State and also without considering the fact that the petitioner has personal difficulty of regarding aliment of petitioner’s husband who has sustained some injuries and he was advised to take bed rest for 4-5 months, as such transfer order is illegal. He would further submit that as per circular dated 01.06.2015, if a government servant who has already posted in a tribal area should not be posted at tribal area again. He would further submit that there is no rule has been framed under the transfer therefore, policy which has been framed by the State government will be treated as executive instrution under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, therefore, any deviation from the Policy by the State government will declare the transfer null and void. He would further submit that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, she has filed the representation which has been decided without considering the ground raised by her as such it is nonest and non-speaking order, as such it is against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asst.Commissioner vs M/S.Shukla & Brothers reported 2010(4) SCC 785 and would pray for quashing of transfer order. 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that the petitioner is remained posted at present place of posting since 1999 as Aganbadi worker and thereafter in the year 2014 she was promoted as Supervisor, as such she has posted there since last 26 years. She would further submit that transfer is incident of service and government servant cannot insist to remain posted at particular place forever, as such she has rightly been transferred. She would further submit that the policy framed by the State Government is not binding in nature, therefore policy dated 01.06.2015 will not give any assistance the petitioner to challenge the transfer. She would further submit that though the representation has been decided without assigning any reason but it will not give effect the action of the respondent regarding transferring the petitioner as no order which has civil consequence has been passed against the petitioner coupled with the fact that the petitioner remained posted at a particular place last 26 years and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The first submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer policy is an executive instruction therefore, it has binding effect as such no such provision has been made in the transfer. The transfer has been defined under Rule 2(18) of the Supplementary Rules, which are extracted below:- "18) "Transfer" means the movement of a Government servant from one headquarter station in which he is employed to another such station, either- (a) to take up the duties of a new post, or (b) In consequence of a change of his headquarters." 6. This Court now considering the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that in the transfer no rules have been framed regarding the 4 transfer of the government servant therefore, transfer policy will be deemed to be an executive instruction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, as such any deviation from the executive instruction vitiate the entire transfer is being considered. 7. It is not in dispute that the transfer is an incident of service, therefore, no executive instruction is required to be framed and normally the place of posting of government servant is three years however, on exigency within less than three years he can be transferred. In the present case, the petitioner remained posted at particular place for 26 years, as such any deviation from transfer policy does not vitiate action of the respondent, therefore, submission made by counsel for the petitioner that non-compliance of the policy vitiate the action is deserves to be rejected. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the entire law on transfer in the case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other 2022 (12) SCC 1 has considered the legal recolonization of transfer policy and has held as under:- 33. There is a fundamental fallacy in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants. Administrative instructions, it is well-settled, can supplement rules which are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution in a manner which does not lead to any inconsistencies. Executive instructions may fill up the gaps in the rules. But supplementing the exercise of the rule making power with the aid of administrative or executive instructions is distinct from taking the aid of administrative instructions contrary to the express provision or the necessary intendment of the rules which have been framed under Article 309. RR 2016 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309. Rule 5 of RR 2016 contains a specific prescription that each CCA shall have its own separate cadre. The absence of a provision for filling up a post in the Commissionerate by absorption of persons belonging to the cadre of another Commissionerate clearly indicates that the cadre is treated as a posting unit and there is no occasion to absorb a person from outside the cadre who holds a similar or comparable post. 5 34. In JS Yadav v. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 570, a two judge bench of this Court observed that the expression ‘cadre’ generally 12. …… denotes a strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. It also includes sanctioned strength with reference to grades in a particular service. Cadre may also include temporary, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades”. Recently, a three-judge Bench of this Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta29, while dealing with the scope of the expression ‘cadre’ referred to various judicial pronouncements. The Bench noted (SCC paras 31,33 and 37). “ 31……. The dispute that arose for consideration of this Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 214] relates to the posts of Director and three Deputy Directors in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, Department of Health, State of Bihar being grouped together for the purpose of implementing the policy of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. […] It was held that the term “cadre” has a definite legal connotation in service jurisprudence. This Court referred to Fundamental Rule 9(4) which defines the word “cadre” to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. 33. The meaning of “cadre” fell for consideration of this Court again in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani [(2008) 9 SCC 242]. “Cadre” in the 1985 edition of the Railway Establishment Code is defined as the strength of a service or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. This Court held that the posts sanctioned in different grades would constitute independent cadres, even for the purpose of implementing the roster. The reason for giving an enlarged meaning to the term “cadre” was that the posts in the railway establishment are sanctioned with reference to grades. Even temporary, work-charged, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades can constitute part of the cadre. 37. It is clear from the above statutory regime and the law laid down by this Court that civil posts under the Government are organised into different services. A service constitutes ‘classes’/‘groups’ of posts. A ‘class’/‘group’ is further bifurcated into grades. Though the nomenclature might be different, the structure of services under the Union and the States is similar. According to the instructions issued by the Union of India, cadres are constituted for each grade. At the cost of repetition, the Union of India submitted that 6 there are 3800 cadres in 44 Ministries/Departments. Fundamental Rule 9(4) defines “cadre” to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is the choice of a State to constitute cadres. The entire service cannot be considered to be a cadre for the purpose of promotion from one post to a higher post in a different grade. Promotion is made from one grade to the next higher grade, in relation to which cadres are constituted. This Court in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan (supra) has categorically stated that the post of Director and Deputy Director cannot form one cadre. A cadre is constituted by the Government by taking into account several factors within its sole discretion. 9. Considering the fact that the petitioner is posted at present place of posting since 26 years, therefore, the impugned transfer order passed by the respondent cannot be found faulty, suffers from arbitrariness or malafile, I am of the view that it is not a case where this Court should exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is sans merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.10.31 10:40:35 +0530