1 2025:CGHC:8417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1289 of 2025 1 – Smt. Shweta Verma W/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Verma, aged about 46 years, Posted as Assistant Engineer at Office of Executive Engineer (Project) Division Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, P.S. And Post Office Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl), Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Executive Director, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl), Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri B.P. Singh, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Shri Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P1) whereby the services of the petitioner has been transferred from Assistant Engineer, office of Executive Engineer (Project), Division Durg, District Durg Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.20 17:33:07 +0530 2 to the office of Executive Engineer (Meter Testing), Division CSPDCL, Bhilai. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 17/01/2025. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding her interest.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred twice in a short time gap of one year and hence the impugned transfer order is not in accordance with law. The impugned order has been issued against the petitioner without assigning any reason or administrative exigency by the department and there is no complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that without there being any sufficient reason, frequent transfer is illegal. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to make a representation before the concerned respondent/competent authority within a week from the receipt of a copy of this order and in turn the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks from its receipt. Till decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.1.2025 (Annexure P1) is hereby stayed. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh