2025:CGHC:58711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12133 of 2025 1 - V.V. Malaiya S/o Bhagirathi Malaiya Aged About 56 Years Presently Working As Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar,district Gariyaband C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband C.G. 3 - The Transfer Coordination Committee, Through The Chairman, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - S.K. Burman, Posted As Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For State. : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respodnent No. 4 : Mr. Ravitosh Kale, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas. Order on Board 03.12.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the transfer order dated 14.07.2025, whereby he has been transferred from the Water Resources Sub-Division, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband to the Office of 2 the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur on the ground of frequent transfer. He has also challenged the order dated 21.08.2025, by which his representation has been rejected by the Transfer Coordination Committee constituted by the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers within a short span, as on 15.03.2024, he was transferred from Jagdalpur to Fingeshwar and he joined his duties on 08.04.2024. Thereafter, by the impugned order, he has again been transferred within a period of one year and five months as aforesaid. It is further submitted that the Committee did not consider the specific grounds raised in his representation, particularly the violation of Clauses 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, and has rejected the representation in a mechanical manner. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding his conduct, therefore, he has been transferred on administrative grounds within a short period. It is further contended that transfer is an incident of service and an employee cannot insist to remain posted at a particular place. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with utmost care. 3 5. The petitioner appears to have been subjected to frequent transfers within a short period, and further considering the fact that the respondents have not furnished any satisfactory explanation on this aspect while rejecting the representation, the impugned transfer order dated 14.07.2025 and the Committee’s recommendation dated 21.08.2025 deserve to be, and are hereby, quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Deshmukh KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.12.05 12:02:26 +0530