1 2025:CGHC:51338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11969 of 2025 Shri Johan Lal Sahu S/o Bisoha Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o H.No 67/2/77, New Changora Bhata, Near Raran Nagar Sahu Atta Chakki, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home (Sainik Kalyan), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Sainik Kalyan, Also Known As Rajya Sainik Board, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Sainik Welfare Officer District Sainik Kalyan Office, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 15/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the impugned transfer order dated 19.09.2025 issued by respondents by which the petitioner has been transferred from District Sainik Kalyan Office, Raipur to District Sainik Kalyan Office, Ambikapur. 2. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is Ex-Army man, he has some personal difficulty suffering from liver ailment. She would further SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.10.16 10:37:13 +0530 2 submits that a direction may be issued to constitute a committee to resolve the grievances of the petitioner and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was posted at a particular for more than 16 years as he has joined the service in the year 2008, as such he cannot insist to remain posted at particular place for his entire service period and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, it is well settled principle of law that the petitioner cannot insist to remain posted in a particular place of posting for a particular period or for the entire service period as transfer is exigency of service and the petitioner has already remained there for 16 years at the same place, therefore, in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of SK Naushad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other 2020 (12) SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer policy does not confer any right to the government servant to remain posted at one place for ever, as such I am of the view that the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 does not suffer from perversity or illegality, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to cost. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner that if he has some personal difficulty, he may take recourse of filing of the representation before the respondents. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh