-1- 2025:CGHC:49688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11076 of 2025 Dr. Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o B-6, Kishan Kunj, Behind Luthra Hospital Nehru Nagar, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Director, Director Livestock Development Department Ground Floor, Block No. 3 Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services Composite Building Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 11095 of 2025 Dr. Archana Agrawal W/o Ajay Kumar Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o B-6, Kishan Kunj, Behind Luthra Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.09 11:02:05 +0530 -2- 2 – Director, Director Livestock Development Department, Ground Floor, Block No. 3, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services Composite Building, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) __________________________________________________________ For Petitioners (s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For State/respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 06/10/2025 1. WPS No.11076 of 2025 and WPS No.11095 of 2025 are being decided by this common order as in both the petitions, identical issue is involved for consideration. 2. WPS No.11076 of 2025 is filed by petitioner challenging transfer order dated 30.06.2025 whereby he was transferred from Artificial Insemination Centre, Bilaspur to Veterinary Hospital Konta, District – Sukma as also decision/recommendation of the Committee dated 19.08.2025 constituted under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy 2025 whereby representation submitted by the petitioner against his transfer was dismissed. 3. WPS No.11095 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner challenging order of transfer dated 30.06.2025 whereby she was transferred from District Animal Disease Investigation Laboratory, Bilaspur to Veterinary -3- Hospital Gadiras District- Sukma as also decision/ recommendation of the Committee dated 19.08.2025 constituted under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy 2025 whereby representation submitted by the petitioner against her transfer was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners in both the writ petitions are husband and wife. They are posted in Veterinary Department. He contended that though petitioners have raised multiple grounds in both writ petitions challenging order of transfer as also recommendations made by the Committee, however, main grievance of petitioners is that they being husband and wife are not posted at one place or nearby place. Petitioners in their representation has raised specific ground of clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy 2025 formulated by the State Govt. for transfer of government servant wherein it is provided that as far as possible, husband and wife are to be posted at same place or nearby place, However, while deciding representation of petitioners in which specific ground has been raised, Committee has not considered and decided that specific ground raised by the petitioners by speaking recommendation. He submits that decision taken by Committee constituted under Clause – 8 of the Transfer Policy 2025 is non-speaking decision. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that though there is clause under transfer policy that husband and wife may be kept at one place or nearby place but that does not give any right to them to claim such a relief. She further submits that as per decision of this Court in earlier -4- writ petition, Committee has considered representation submitted by petitioners and had decided the same in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petitions. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioners who are husband and wife are posted in same department i.e. Veterinary Department. It is also not in dispute that prior to their transfer they were posted at Bilaspur district and also posted in same city. True it is that petitioners being government servants could not claim as a matter of right to be posted at one place, however, when once State Govt. has taken a decision that as far as possible government servants who are husband and wife and posted in same department, are to be posted at one place or nearby place as far as possible, then said decision of State Govt. has to be given effect to unless there is any difficulty for posting of both husband and wife at same place or nearby place. 8. Perusal of representation enclosed along with writ petitions would show that petitioners have taken specific ground referring to clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy in their representation. The Committee constituted under Clause –8 of Transfer Policy 2025 while considering representation has not made any observation on the ground as raised by both the petitioners referring to Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy 2025. Perusal of recommendation dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-1 in both the writ petitions) would reveal that Committee while making recommendation did not keep in mind the relevant clause in particular clause 3.13 of Transfer Policy 2025. -5- 9. For the foregoing discussions, impugned recommendation dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-1 in both the writ petitions) made by the Committee constituted under Clause -8 of Transfer Policy 2025 are not sustainable, accordingly they are set aside. The Committee is directed to re-consider representations submitted by both the petitioners discussing all the grounds as raised in representation and to make speaking recommendation on representations as pending consideration before it. 10. As the interim protection of “no coercive steps shall be taken” is already ordered by this Court in favour of both the petitioners in earlier writ petitions i.e. WPS No.8316 of 2025 and WPS No.8281 of 2025 respectively, the said interim protection will continue till fresh decision on representations of petitioners is taken by the Committee. Committee is directed to take afresh decision on recommendation submitted by the petitioners within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petitions stand disposed off. /- Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen