1 2025:CGHC:11252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 744 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Shukla S/o Shri Ram Pramod Shukla Aged About 43 Years R/o C-19, Raheja Nirwana, Kachna, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Energy, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (CREDA) Through its Chief Executive Officer, Head Quarter - Near Urja Shiksha Udyan, VIP Road (Airport Road) Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Executive Engineer (Administration) - CREDA Head Quarter - Near Energy Park, VIP Road (Airport Road), District - Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri Ajit Singh, Government Advocate For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order of transfer dated 15-01- 2025 (Annexure P1) as well as relieving order dated 20-01-2025 (Annexure P2) issued by Respondents No. 2 and 3 transferring the Petitioner from Head Office Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.17 18:34:26 +0530 2 Raipur to District Office Sakti without any rhymes or reasons at the whims of Respondent No. 2 in utter disregard to the due process of law with mala fide and biased intention to harass the Petitioner by making extraneous pressure of withdrawing the litigations which the Petitioner along with other employees of CREDA have filed against CREDA. The Petitioner along with other employees of CREDA have filed various cases in this Court seeking direction to release the report of DPC meeting convened on 16.07.2024, which, as per the CREDA Service Rules, the Respondent No. 2 is bound to release within a period of 20 days from the date of meeting, which they have not released till date. The aforesaid impugned orders are contrary to the transfer policy of the State as well as violative of the election code of conduct. Against the said inaction of Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has also filed a Contempt Petition bearing Contempt Case No. 1417/2024 wherein on 05-12-2024, the Counsel for the Respondent/Contemner made a submission to comply with the direction of this Court within a period of 2 weeks and the very next day of getting information regarding the contempt proceeding, the Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order transferring the Petitioner which is clearly an upshoot of the litigations which the Petitioner and other like employees have initiated against the Respondent No. 2. The aforesaid impugned order of transfer clearly demonstrates the highhandedness of the Respondent No. 2 whereby they are adopting arm-twist method to wreak vengeance and deterring the Petitioner to not to proceed with the contempt proceeding. The said action as well as impugned order is arbitrary, whimsical and colorful exercise of administrative power which is against the basic principle of fairness. Hence, the writ petition. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner for its kind perusal. 3 (ii) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents more particularly to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 to quash the impugned transfer order dated 15-01- 2024 (Annexure P/1) as well as impugned relieving order dated 20-01- 2025 (Annexure P/2) issued by Respondent No. 2 & 3 so far as it relates to the Petitioner. (iii) That, any other relief which Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be awarded.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order dated 15-01-2025 as well as impugned relieving order dated 20-01-2025 and actions of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are bad in law as well as on facts. The impugned orders and the actions of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 are nothing but a colorful exercise of administrative power by the Respondents Authorities. The said orders have been issued in utter disregard to the due process prescribed under the law. The impugned orders are totally contrary to the transfer policy of the State as well as the election code of conduct. Father of the Petitioner is suffering from various health related ailments and is undergoing treatment and the Petitioner is the only care-taker of his father who has been advised to be kept under regular medical observation/medication for which the Petitioner is required to remain present at urban areas, more particularly, in a locality having appropriate medical infrastructure for treatment. However, the Petitioner will not be able to provide for the same due to impugned orders issued against him. The children of the Petitioner are studying at Raipur and transferring the Petitioner during the mid-session will adversely affect their studies and education. The impugned actions of Respondents No. 2 and 3 are arm-twisting tactics bearing mala fide intentions to harass the Petitioner and deter him to withdraw his case pending before this Court with respect to the release of report of DPC dated 16.07.2024. The impugned orders have been issued by Respondents No. 2 and 3 with mala fide and biased intention to harass the Petitioner 4 by making extraneous pressure of withdrawing the litigations which they have filed against CREDA. The Petitioner along with other employees of CREDA have filed various cases in this Court seeking direction to release the report of DPC meeting convened on 16.07.2024 which as per the CREDA Service Rules, the Respondent No. 2 is bound to release within a period of 20 days from the date of meeting which they have not released till date. Against the said inaction of the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has also filed a Contempt Petition wherein on 05-12-2024, the Counsel for the Respondent/Contemner made a submission to comply with the direction of this Court within a period of 2 weeks and the very next day of getting information regarding the contempt proceeding, the Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order transferring the Petitioner which is clearly an upshoot of the litigations which the Petitioner and other like employees have initiated against the Respondent No. 2 and the aforesaid impugned order of transfer clearly demonstrates the highhandedness of the Respondent No. 2 whereby they are adopting arm-twist method to wreak vengeance and deterring the Petitioner to not to proceed with the contempt proceeding. The said action as well as impugned orders are arbitrary, whimsical and colorful exercise of administrative power which is against the basic principle of fairness. After receiving the impugned order of transfer, the Petitioner approached the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and made oral request to not act upon the impugned transfer order as the Election Code of Conduct is imposed due to upcoming Municipal and Panchayat Elections, 2025. But, to the utter surprise and shock of the Petitioner, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 issued the impugned relieving order on 20- 01-2025. The said action of the Respondents clearly shows their mala fide intent and the said impugned orders are contrary to the Election Code of Conduct imposed on 20-01-2025. The impugned order of transfer is contrary to the Transfer Policy of the State which states that no transfer can be made after the prescribed period without obtaining prior approval of the concerned Secretary and the Minister of the Department, which in the present case has been blatantly flouted. Hence, it is claimed that the petition deserves to be allowed. 5 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No.1 opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the Petitioner initially joined service under Respondent No. 2 in 2005 as a Junior Engineer and was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 2013. At present, the Petitioner's substantive post is that of Assistant Engineer, however, he is posted as an Executive Engineer (Incharge), Head Office, Raipur. During his tenure of service, Petitioner has performed his duties and obligations bestowed upon him with utmost sincerity and devotion and he is having an unblemished service record. The Respondent No. 2 had convened a meeting of DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) on 16.07.2024 for the promotion of the Petitioner and other like employees who are eligible and entitled for grant of benefit of promotion from their respective posts to the higher promotional posts as per the principles of merit-cum-seniority as provided under the CREDA Service Rules. The present Petitioner had completed the qualifying years of service to get promoted to the higher post in respective cadre as per CREDA Service Rules of 2004 which is in vogue till date and various DPC meetings have been convened and accordingly promotions have been granted to other employees. Further, as per the best information of the Petitioner, the DPC meeting dated 16.07.2024 was also held on as per the said CREDA Service Rules of 2004, but, the Respondent No. 2 has not released the report/minutes of the meeting of the said DPC and consequent order of promotion till date which dehors the statutory rules which is in force. Moreover, even till date neither report/minutes of the meeting nor any promotion order has been issued by the respondent authorities which is violation of the statutory rights of the Petitioner and is also prejudicial to his interest/rights as a government employee. The Petitioner in this regard has submitted representations before the Respondent No. 2 which were not considered. The above averments do not advance the case of the Petitioner as they do not even remotely indicate as to how the Petitioner's transfer suffers from any transgression of any law or policy. As far as the Petitioner's legal rights, which do not relate to his transfer, are 6 concerned, the same cannot be pressed into service for espousing the present petition. It is further submitted that first, the exercise of power of transfer in the present case is not arbitrary and whimsical as the relevant pages of note sheet drawn on 14.01.2025 and 15.01.2025 clearly reflect the reason for transfer order issued, i.e., administrative exigency. The aforesaid further reflects that administrative exigency arose as a senior officer of Assistant Engineer Rank with experience was needed to be appointed as District Head for the newly opened District office of CREDA in the recently formed District of Sakti as the aforesaid office was being headed by a Sub- Engineer. Secondly, the doctrine of fairness has been adhered to as the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of after weighing all the factors put-forth through the said representation. The doctrine of fairness has limited application when the transfer order is not punitive in nature, but, is born out of administrative exigency and stems from the settled law that transfer is incidence of service and prerogative of employer. As far as grievance of the petitioner with respect to his father's health ailment is concerned the same has been dealt with vide order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure R1) deciding inter alia the representation of the petitioner dated 16.01.2025 which raised an analogous concern. It is specifically stated in the aforesaid order dated 23.01.2025 that requisite leave had been granted to the petitioner during the petitioner's father's bypass surgery and more than one month had elapsed from the date of surgery i.e. 12.12.2024 when the transfer order was passed. As far as ground relating to the children is concerned the same is at variance with representation of the petitioner i.e. Annexure P/13 and Annexure P/15 as the above stated ground has not been raised vide the aforesaid representations dated 16.01.2025 and 21.01.2025, respectively and is an afterthought. Most of the Government employees have children and if it is held that they cannot be transferred in mid-term of their children studying in school, there could hardly be any transfer. Hence, the plea of mala fide and bias intention cannot be resorted to in the present matter. It is further submitted that as far as right of the petitioner which pertains to promotion is concerned the same does not advance the case of the petitioner as the 7 aforesaid has zero impact on the legality of the transfer order. It is further submitted that the averment that transfer order had been issued the very next day after receiving information of contempt proceeding/it was a knee jerk reaction to the institution of contempt proceeding is misleading and presents a false picture as the vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 in Contempt (C) No. 1417/2024 had been executed on 02.01.2025 and filed on 03.01.2025. Thus, as far as the transfer order being classified as arbitrary, whimsical and being colourable exercise of power is concerned, the same stands negated. After receiving the impugned order of transfer, the Petitioner approached the Respondents No. 2 & 3 and made oral request not to act upon the impugned transfer order as the Election Code of Conduct was imposed due to upcoming Municipal and Panchayat Elections, 2025. The allegation of violation of the State election code of conduct (espoused vide representation dated 21.01.2025) has been dealt with vide order dated 23.01.2025 which specifically states that as the order of transfer had already been passed on 15.01.2025 there is no violation of Clause 17 of the Election Directions Book, 2024 issued by the General Administrative Department which stated that transfer would be prohibited from the date of announcement of election till date of conclusion of the same. Since in the present case there is no breach of statutory rules and/or presence of mala fide or bias even allegation of violation of transfer policy which is not enforceable in nature cannot be ground to judicially review the transfer order. It is trite law that transfer order need not contain reason(s) for the transfer but the same should be recorded so that in event of challenge to the transfer the same/ reason(s) can be produced before the Court for its perusal and acts as a cushion/buffer for exercise done. The petitioner already stands relieved vide order dated 20.01.2025. Hence, it is submitted that in light of the aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine with costs. 6. The transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner being a government servant cannot escape from being transferred by the department in view of the requirement and administrative exigency arising from time to time. Having considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and the contentions put-forth by learned counsel 8 appearing for the parties, this Court does not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the petitioner. There is nothing to hold the transfer of the petitioner to be improper. 7. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. The order passed by this Court on 24.1.2025 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order of transfer with regard to the petitioner stands vacated. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh