1 2025:CGHC:52224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12255 of 2025 • Edla Satyanarayan S/o Edla Shiwaiya Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted And Working As Forester At Indrawti Tiger Reserve, Bijapur, Forest Circle Bastar, Distt.- Bijapur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. Chairman High Power Coordination Committee, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, C.G. (Transfer Redressal Committee Constituted Under The Transfer Policy Of 2025) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the recommendation dated 21.08.2025 passed by the Committee constituted by the State Government by which the petitioner who is working as Forester his representation has been rejected without considering the grounds MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.10.28 12:05:47 +0530 2 raised by the petitioner that if he has allowed to be transferred out of circle his seniority will be affected, whereas the same Committee constituted by the State Government has allowed the representation of the other Forest Guard on the count that if he has been transferred from Forest Circle Kondagaon to Forest Circle Dantewada, his seniority will be affected. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 23.07.2025 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Indrawati Tiger Reserve Bijapur, Forest Circle Bastar to Forest Division Dhamtari, Forest Circle Raipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that discriminative orders have been passed by the respondent authorities. He would further submit that by the impugned transfer order petitioner’s seniority will be affected. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner sand perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4. From both the orders passed by the respondent authorities, it is quite vivid that the Committee has adopted discriminative attitude for similar situated persons which is not inconformity with the law that the similar situated persons should be treated similarly, therefore, the impugned recommendation of rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 21.08.2025 as well as the transfer order dated 23.07.2025 are illegal and liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside. 5. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Committee which has been constituted by the State for considering the grievances of the 3 employees with word of caution that they should not pass discriminative order and should not done any discrimination between the similar situated persons. 6. A copy of this order be also forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh for information to issue appropriate direction to the Committee so constituted by the State Government regarding consideration of the representation against the transfer order to act fairly. 7. With aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish