1 2025:CGHC:54614 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12716 of 2025 Mithlesh Donde S/o Late Bhaiya Lal Donde Aged About 58 Years (Add. Collector) R/o Bhatapara P S Bhatapara City District Balodabazar Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Upper Secretary, General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Add-Chief Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department/urban Administration And Development/revenue And Disaster (Apda) Management Department/tribal And Scheduled Caste Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001. 4 - The Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 10.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 by which representation preferred by him assailing impugned order dated 30.07.2025 whereby BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.11.25 19:39:28 +0530 2 he has been transferred from District Baloda Bazar to District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is working on post of Additional Collector has filed this petition mainly contending that he remained posted in a scheduled area for more than 04 years, therefore, he should be considered for posting in non- scheduled area. He would further submit that earlier the petitioner has filed writ petition before this Court bearing WP(S) No. 4053 of 2022 challenging the transfer order dated 23.05.2022 by which he has been posted in scheduled area at District Bijapur wherein this Court vide order dated 20.06.2022 stayed the said transfer order and directed the petitioner to prefer representation before the transfer committee and the said representation has been rejected by the committee vide order dated 12.07.2022. He would further submit that though he has preferred representation, but the petitioner joined his service on 27.06.2022 to the transferred place i.e. District Balodabazar-Bhatapara vide Annexure-P/8. 3. He would further submit that the petitioner again challenged the transfer order dated 23.05.2022 by preferring a writ petition bearing WPS No. 5308 of 2022 which has been disposed off by this Court by observing that since the petitioner has enjoyed the interim order passed by this Court for more than two years therefore, the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance wsith law on the basis of administrative exigency and dispose of the petition vide order dated 08.05.2025. 4. He would further submit that the respondents issued fresh transfer order on 30.07.2025 (Annexure P/12) transferring petitioner from Balodabazar Bhatapara to Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki vide 3 Annexure P/12. The name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 19 of the transfer order. 5. The petitioner has challenged that transfer order before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 9568 of 2025 wherein this Court has directed the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the Transfer Committee and in turn they will take decision in accordance with law in objective manner and pass a reasoned order within a period of two weeks till then no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. It has been further contended that in pursuance of direction given by this Court, the petitioner made representation before the Committee and the said representation has been rejected by them vide impugned order dated 16.10.2025 without assigning any reason. He would further submit that the authorities are bent upon him to transfer though he has been granted protection by this Court. He would further submit that petitioner is victim of arbitrariness on the part of respondents and would pray for allowing the instant petition. 6. Per contra learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that transfer is an incident of service and no Government Servant can insist to remain posted at particular place of posting forever. He would further submit that various part of the State is a scheduled area therefore, this cannot be considered a ground to interfere in the transfer order and the fact that petitioner has remained posted for more than 04 years in a particular placed of posting though his transfer from Balodabazar to Bijapur vide order dated 23.05.2022 has not been given effect and ultimately, this Court vide its order dated 08.05.2025 has directed not to insist the transfer order but liberty was given to State to pass a fresh 4 transfer order on administrative exigency, as such, he has been rightly transferred and would pray for rejection of the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. Admittedly, transfer is an incident of service and no Government Servant can insist to remain posted in particular place of posting for their entire service period. From the record, it is not in dispute the petitioner was transferred from Balodabazar to Bijapur vide order dated 23.05.2022 which was not implemented as detailed above and the petitioner in the writ petition has nowhere mentioned that since when he is posted at Balodabazar though it is incumbent upon the petitioner to place on record before this Court however, from the perusal of the service book annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was posted at Balodabazar on 01.03.2019 and since then he has been posted at Balodabazar only as such more than 6 years. The contention of the petitioner that he has been posted in Scheduled area for more than 8 years is violation of the Clause 1.3 of the Policy dated 03.06.2015 is misconceived as the transfer/posting policy does not confer any right to the government servant to insist to remain posted at particular place. 9. The further submission of the petitioner that now the petitioner is 58 years old, therefore, he should not be posted in a scheduled area in terms of the policy dated 03.06.2025, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected as it is well settled position of law that the transfer policy does not confer any right over the government servant for claiming place of post as per his choice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SK Nausad Rahaman & Other Vs. Union of India & Other [(2022) 12 SCC 1] has examined the entire law on the subject with 5 regard to transfer of government servant and has held that it is not a matter of right of the government servant to be remain posted at present place of posting for entire service period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “24 First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. 25 Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration. 26 Third, policies which stipulate that the posting of spouses should be preferably, and to the extent practicable, at the same station are subject to the PART D requirement of the administration. In this context, Justice JS Verma (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for a three-judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta 24 held : “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at 6 different places. […] No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees.” 27 The above principle was cited with approval in Union of India v. SL Abbas 25 where the Court held that transfer is an incident of service: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.” 28 Fourth, norms applicable to the recruitment and conditions of service of officers belonging to the civil services can be stipulated in: (i) A law enacted by the competent legislature; (ii) Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution; and (iii) Executive instructions issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, in the case of civil services under the Union and Article 162, in the case of civil services under the States. 29. Fifth, where there is a conflict between executive instructions and rules framed under Article 309, the rules must prevail. In the event of a conflict between the rules framed under Article 309 and a law made by the appropriate legislature, the law prevails. Where the rules are skeletal or in a situation when there is a gap in the rules, executive instructions can supplement what is stated in the rules.” 10. The reliance upon the judgment of coordinate Bench in WPS No. 176/2020 is misplaced in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.K Naushad (supra). The further submission that the committee has passed the order rejecting the representation without assigning any reason is violation of principle of 7 natural justice therefore, liable to be interfered by this Court is deserved to rejected as by rejecting the representation by the committee no right of the government servant is adversely affected which has civil consequence as the service condition of the petitioner will not be altered to his disadvantage. 11. The petitioner has remained at present place of posting for more than 06 years which is more than the tenure of any government officer regarding his posting at a particular place and his transfer order dated 23.05.2022 has not been implemented, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned transfer order as well as the order passed by the Committee on 16.10.2025. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika