1 2025:CGHC:55015-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 819 of 2025 Smt. Chunika Sahu W/o Yogesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o 937/9, Street No.03, Hind Nagar, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Development And Farmers Welfare And Bio- Technology Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Horticulture And Field Forestry Through Its Director, Address- 2nd Block- 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shri Kailash Kumar Parate Working As Garden Development O6cer Presently Available In The O6ce Of Respondent No.2. I.E. Directorate Of Horticulture And Field Forestry Address- 2nd Block- 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) (The SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.11.13 10:36:56 +0530 2 Respondent No.3 Name Is Not Mentioned In The Said Impugned Transfer Order) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Y.S. Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12/11/2025 1. Heard Shri Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant Also heard Shri Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12082/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner was disposed of, by directing the respondent authorities to decide the pending representations of the petitioner/appellant within four weeks. 3 For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The appellant, presently working as a Rural Horticulture Extension O6cer in the o6ce of the (Assistant Director, Horticulture), ख उदयन य has been transferred by order dated 30.06.2025 to the o6ce of the Deputy Director, Horticulture, Jagdalpur, on administrative grounds. Being aggrieved, the appellant made several representations dated 11.06.2025, 04.07.2025, 15.07.2025, and 17.07.2025 requesting to be retained at Raipur or alternatively posted at Durg at her own expense, stating that her husband is posted in District Bemetara in the Electricity Department, her parents and in-laws reside in District Durg, and that she is pregnant and requires family care. The Secretary to the Governor, vide letter dated 09.07.2025, directed the concerned authority to retain the appellant at Raj Bhawan, Raipur, and to modify her transfer order; however, no action was taken, and she has not been relieved till date. The appellant is presently in her seventh and a half month of pregnancy, undergoing regular medical check-ups, and has been advised by her doctor to avoid long travel due to possible complications. Despite these circumstances, the 4 authorities have not reconsidered her case, causing her hardship during the advanced stage of pregnancy. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “xxx xxx xxx 5. Considering the submission made by the parties that the petitioner is facing pregnancy as it has been contended, its a personal diculty of the petitioner which can be considered by the employer only as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.K. Nausad. Rahaman & others Vs. Union of India & others reported in 2022 (12) SCC 1, therefore, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall decide the petitioner's representations dated 11.06.205, 04.07.2025, 15.07.2025 and 17.07.2025 within 4 weeks as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman (Supra) from the date of submission of the copy of this order before the respondent authorities. 6. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of." 5 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside or suitably modiCed, as the same has been passed without considering the genuine and compassionate grounds of the appellant’s advanced pregnancy. It is submitted that the appellant, who is presently more than seven and a half months pregnant, has made several representations requesting to be retained at Raipur or transferred to Durg at her own expense, as her husband is posted at Block Berla, District Bemetara, and her parental and in-law families reside at Durg, who alone can take care of her during this critical period. Despite such representations and even a communication from the Secretary to the Governor directing retention of the appellant at Raj Bhawan, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. It has been stated by counsel for the petitioner/appellant that a day prior to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has been relieved and respondent No. 3 has given the charge. The counsel submits that even in a similar case (WPS No. 5462/2022), interim relief was granted on pregnancy grounds, but the appellant has been denied such relief in identical circumstances. It is therefore urged that, considering her critical medical condition and the 6 State Government’s transfer policy providing for relaxation on medical and compassionate grounds, the impugned order be stayed or modiCed to allow her to continue at her present posting until completion of maternity leave. It has been stated by counsel for the petitioner/appellant that a day prior to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner had already been relieved and charge has been given to respondent No. 3. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that the transfer is incident of service, therefore, she cannot claim to be posted at particular place forever. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. From the submissions made, it is evident that the appellant was relieved from her post and respondent No. 3 had already taken charge a day prior to the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge. It appears that this material fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of the writ petition. Had this fact been disclosed, the learned Single Judge might have considered the matter diEerently. 7 However, since this fact was neither pleaded nor brought before the writ Court, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the Crst time at the stage of writ appeal. There is no illegality and inCrmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. In view of the same the writ appeal , is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib