1 2025:CGHC:61789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 939 of 2025 Rupendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Firat Ram Sinha Aged About 45 Years R/o - Ward No.- 63, Street No. - 01, Near Ashirvad Bhavan, Civic Centre, P.S. And Tehsil Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh - 490006 ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), Pin- 492002 2. Under Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Engineer In Chief Rural Engineering Service, Vikas Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Rural Engineering Services, Bemetara, District - Bemetara (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.19 15:27:35 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 12262 of 2025 (Rupendra Kumar Sinha vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority. The learned Single Judge further directed that such representation, if filed, shall be considered and decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Others vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the very outset, submits that although the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to 3 the appellant to submit a representation before the appropriate authority with respect to his grievance relating to transfer, no interim protection has been granted. It is contended that unless interim relief is granted by this Court, the appellant would suffer irreparable hardship during the interregnum period till the representation is filed and decided by the competent authority. On the aforesaid premise, a prayer is made for grant of interim protection. 4. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the learned Single Judge, having regard to the nature of the grievance raised and the settled legal position governing matters of transfer, has rightly relegated the appellant to avail the alternative remedy of representation before the competent authority. The learned Single Judge has also specifically directed the respondents to consider such representation in the light of the binding law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman (supra). 5. It is well settled that an intra-Court appeal does not lie merely because the appellant is aggrieved by the absence of an interim order, particularly when the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion in a judicious manner and no perversity or jurisdictional error is demonstrated. 6. At this stage, this Court does not find any compelling reason to interfere with the impugned order or to grant interim relief, especially 4 when the appellant has an efficacious remedy available in terms of the liberty already granted. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference. The appellant is at liberty to submit a representation before the competent authority, which shall be considered and decided expeditiously and in accordance with law, as directed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan