1 2025:CGHC:11504 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 645 of 2025 1 - Nagendra Singh Thakur S/o Uday Bhan Singh Aged About 58 Years Posted As Assistant Director (Finance), Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate Of Treasury, Account And Pension Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Ajay Kumar Sahu Assistant Director (Finance) Directorate Of Agriculture Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate and Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: 2 “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned transfer order Dated 16.01.2025 issued by respondent Under Secretary, Department of Finance (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned relieved order Dated 17.01.2025 issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-II on 11.11.1992 and posted at the Block Education Officer, Bhopalpatnam, Bijapur. The petitioner was promoted to Assistant Account Officer and posted at the Pradhanmantri Gram Sadak Yojana, Dantewada on 07.03.2005. On 17.11.2015, the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Internal Audit Officer to Naya Raipur, subsequently promoted to Assistant Treasury Officer. The petitioner was promoted to Account Officer and posted in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Road Network Management Unit, Naya Raipur. Thereafter, petitioner was posted as Assistant Director at Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Raipur. Further on 16.01.2025, the petitioner was transferred to Zila Panchayat, Sukma, as Account Officer, citing administrative exigency and was relieved on 17.01.2025. it is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that transfer of petitioner to Sukma appears to be a result of an 3 adjustment favoring respondent No. 5, making the transfer arbitrary. The petitioner has served in scheduled areas (Bijapur, Bastar, Jagdalpur. Dantewada) for 23 years, violating the GAD's circular of 03.06.2015 which mandates a minimum of 2 years of service before transferring out of scheduled areas. It is further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that wife of petitioner, namely, Smt. Kalyani Singh, is posted as a teacher in Raipur, making the transfer disruptive for the family. Substantive post of the petitioner is Assistant Director (Finance), while the post of Account Officer in Zila Panchayat is a deputation posting, requiring the petitioner's consent for the transfer, which was not obtained and as per the order dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure-P/8), the post of Account Officer in Zila Panchayat is meant to be filled by deputation, and transferring the petitioner without consent is improper. Children of petitioner, namely, Rohan Singh aged about 28 years and Somesh Singh aged about 20 years are suffering from mental disorders and are undergoing treatment in Raipur, making the transfer unjustifiable. Hence, it is prayed that order dated 16.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 2 may be set-aside / quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that vide notification dated 13/04/2017 (Annexure R/1), the State Government Department of Finance has notified and earmarked certain posts of different departments to be the posts which shall 4 be filled up from the Officers belonging to State Finance Services. In the said notification, Serial no. 113 of the post sanctioned in the junior pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39100+ Grade Pay 5400/- prescribes the post of Accounts Officer, Zila Panchayat Sukma which has to be filled up by way of the Officers belonging to State Finance Services. Under these circumstances, it can be safely said that the post of Accounts Officer at Zila Panchayat Sukma can only be filled up from the officers belonging to the State Finance Services which in the instant case has been filled up by way of the petitioner being the holder of post having pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- + Grade Pay 5400/-. The petitioner has been posted within the same block and district which does not affect any adverse in the service conditions of the petitioner. As such, the posting of the petitioner is completely on administrative ground under circumstances to meet the requirements of the service, hence, order dated 16.01.2025 is legal, valid and in accordance with the established transfer policy. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 5. Though petitioner has raised a ground that this transfer order is, in fact, a order of attachment and further, the petitioner cannot be posted as Accountant at Zila Panchayat, Sukma, but considering the fact that vide notification dated 13.04.2017, State Government has notified that the post which shall be filled up from the Officers belonging to State Finance Services, post of petitioner lies in the 5 said notification, hence, the aforesaid ground cannot be considered. Further, the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds and transfer is an exigency of service which has been reiterated again and again by Hon’ble Supreme Court, as such, other grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition being sans merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI