2025:CGHC:54382 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12632 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Chandra Patra S/o Late Girjashankar Patra Aged About 42 Years Presently Working As Assistant Range Officer Range Office, Indagaon (Deobhog) Forest Division Gariyaband District - Gariyaband (C.G.) And R/o Forest Colony Deobhog Tahsil Deobhog And District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Forest And Climate Change Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests And Head Of The Forest Force Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chairman High Power Coordination Committee, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Transfer Redressal Committee Constituted Under The Transfer Policy Of 2025) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.11.2025 1. The petitioner who is working as Forester has filed present KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.11.10 11:00:06 +0530 petition assailing transfer order dated 23.07.2025 by which he has been transferred from Gariyaband Forest Division to Mahasamund Forest Division and he has also challenged order dated 19.09.2025 by which his representation has been rejected by the Committee constituted by the State of Chhattisgarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that within a short of span of 2 years the petitioner has been transferred. The impugned transfer is violation of transfer policy. He would further submit that the Committee has passed non-speaking order while deciding his representation. On these factual matrix of the case, he would pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State would submit that an employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place of posting for ever, therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner, accordingly, would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The impugned transfer order has been passed on 23.07.2025 and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, he remain posted at his original place of posting till date i.e. around 2 years have been completed, therefore, now there is no illegality or irregularity in transferring the petitioner. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Committee has not passed a reasoned order is misconceived as no fundamental or civil rights of the petitioner has been violated. The Committee is not discharging Statutory Duties which may require the Committee to pass a well reasoned order. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is rejected. Further contention of the petitioner that the transfer policy has been violated is rejected on the count that transfer policy is not binding in nature in view of the well settled position of law by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other [2022 (12) SCC 1]. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that transfer is an incident of service, an employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place of posting for ever. 6. Considering aforesaid aspect of the matter, I am of the view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned transfer order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition (S) sans merits and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore