1 2025:CGHC:52364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12277 of 2025 Sunit Sahu S/o Shri Satosh Sahu Aged About 34 Years Presently Working As Forest Range Officer, In The Sonakhan Range (Territorial), Forest Division, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Transfer Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Department Of General Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Head Of Forest Force Chhattisagarh, Aaranya Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Divisional Forest Officer Baloda Bazar, Forest Division, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 5. Divisional Forest Officer Gariaband, Forest Division, Gariaband, District - Gariaband (C.G.) 6. Shri Ganvir Dhammshil, Divisional Forest Officer, Baloda Bazar, Forest Division, Baloda Bazar, District - Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28/10/2025 2 The default pointed out by the Registry is over ruled. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the relieving order dated 07.10.2025 and impugned transfer order dated 31.07.2025 wherein the name of the petitioner is found at Sr. No. 51 in the transfer list by which he has been transferred from Forest Range Officer, Sonakhan Range (Territorial) Forest Divison, Baloda Bazar, to Forest Range Officer, Dhavalpur Range (Production) Forest Divison, Gariaband, District Gariaband. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per circular issued by the State on 25th August, 2004 the office bearer of the Union is exempted from the transfer and the petitioner being Vice President of Union namely Chhattisgarh Forest Ranger Association, Raipur should be granted exempted from transfer. He would further submit that he has also challenged the relieving order dated 07.10.2025 issued by Divisional Forest Officer Balodabazar on the count that without approval from the Minister, no relieving order can be passed and would pray for quashing of transfer order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission and would submit that the transfer is incident of service and circular does not confer any right to the petitioner to remain posted at particular place for his entire service period and he is posted at present place of posting more than two years, as such he has rightly been transferred. She would further submit that for relieving there is no necessity of getting approval from the concerned Minister and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. This Court put specif query to the counsel for the petitioner whether any rules or regulations is framed by the State Government before relieving the vice president of Union approval of concerned Minister is necessary or not. He 3 would submit that there is no such rules has been made in this regard as such submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding necessity of approval from the concerned Minister deserves to be rejected. 6. Considering the well settled legal position that the transfer is incident of service and policy framed in this regard by the State government does not confer any right to the government servant to remain posted at particular place forever or any violation of policy or circular can vitiate the transfer. The petitioner is unable to place on record any malafide or arbitrariness which are limited area where the transfer order can be interfered by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other 2022 (12) SCC 1, has examined the scope of interference of transfer by the Courts and also considered the legal sanctity of the policy framed by the State Government regarding transfer, therefore, submission of counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of transfer policy will vitiate the transfer deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. 7. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is office bearer of Union, therefore, he should be protected from the transfer. But no such document has been placed on record to demonstrate that the Union is recognized by the State Government or list of office bearer has been placed on record to substantiate his claim that the petitioner is office bearer of the Union. In absence of any such material placed on record by the counsel for the petitioner the submission made by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is office bearer of the Union is misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 4 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case no case is made out for interference in the transfer order, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.10.30 10:47:48 +0530