1 2025:CGHC:37676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1031 of 2023 Smt. Rambai Sahu W/o Shri Mohan Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Occupation -Service, Working As Rural Health Organization Primary Health Center, Baigabahar, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hospital Jashpr Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Block Medical And Health Officer, Block Patthalgaon, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.02 16:51:45 +0530 2 authorities concerned with regard to present case, for kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court further may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 08.09.2022 (Annexure P-2 Sl. No. 29), passed by the respondent authorities concerned. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 12.01.2023 and 08.09.2022 (Annexures P-1 and P- 2) are illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. The petitioner, who is suffering from a serious knee ailment (Annexure P-7), has been transferred from PHC Baigabahar to PHC Samarbar, nearly 150 km away, without any valid reason. The transfer is based on a false complaint by one Amit Kumar Tigga and his family, with no other complaints from the public or villagers. Despite the petitioner’s pending representation and directions of this Court, the respondents proceeded with the relieving order, showing non- application of mind. No replacement has been posted at Baigabahar, violating the Transfer Policy, 2022 (Annexure P-8). While others have been transferred on mutual consent or request, the petitioner has been arbitrarily shifted on "administrative 3 grounds" without justification. The entire action is discriminatory and deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 5. It has been reflected from the record that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023, has been granted an order of stay in favour of the petitioner to the following effect :- “Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner aggrieved with her order of transfer has filed writ petition as WPS No. 6373/2022. Considering the grounds raised in writ petition, it was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the Committee constituted under the Transfer policy and interim protection of stay of the transfer of petitioner was granted. Petitioner immediately submitted representation before the concerned Committee, however, said representation is not decided till date. Pending decision of representation Respondent No. 3 has issued an order on 12.01.2023 directing petitioner to join at the transferred place on the ground that the period of interim protection of 08 weeks 4 granted by the High Court has already been completed, which is arbitrary. Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, the representation submitted by petitioner is not decided till date, as also the contents of order Annexure P-1 wherein petitioner is directed to give her joining at the transferred place only because 08 weeks is completed, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that effect and operation of order Annexure P-1 dated 12.01.2023, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner has assailed the transfer order primarily on the ground of arbitrariness and malafide intention, asserting that the same was not issued on any genuine administrative ground. It is also not in dispute that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already granted interim protection to the petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2023. 7. It is well-settled that although transfer is an incident of service and falls within the administrative domain of the employer, such discretion must be exercised fairly and in accordance with established policies. Arbitrary or frequent transfers, particularly without valid justification, disrupt the service conditions and cannot be sustained in law. 5 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and in view of the passage of time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned transfer order has lost its practical significance. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order 12.01.2023 is held to be arbitrary and unsustainable and is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the State to issue fresh and appropriate orders regarding the posting of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, rules, and the applicable transfer policy, if administrative necessity so requires. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh