1 2026:CGHC:20375 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3787 of 2026 1 - T.R. Armo (Tirath Ram Armo) S/o Shri Visharm Singh Armo Aged About 61 Years Working As Assistant Engineer At The Office Of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Service, Sub-Division Pali, District - Korba (C.G.), R/o Village Karra Nawapara, Tahsil Pali, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Development Commissioner Office Of Development Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Collector Korba District - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Engineer-In-Chief Office Of Development Commissioner, Vikas Bhawan, North Block,sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 7 - Babulal Yadav Transferred And Posted At The Post Of Assistant Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Sub-Division Pali, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Danesna, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 01/05 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire records from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus quashing the impugned transfer order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) in respect of the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work at the same place and another transfer order in respect of the Respondent No. 8 may be issued to the respondent authorities 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier writ petition was filed, but claim of the petitioner was not considered according to the order passed in writ petition bearing WP (S) No. 12304/2025. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submits that this writ petition in its form is not maintainable as petitioner has earlier challenged the order of transfer in the aforementioned petition and the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit representation and petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the decision on the representation, along with this writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) in WP (S) NO. 3 12304/2025 which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court observing thus:- “5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that only 14 months time is due for retirement and it is not in dispute that it creates difficulty in transferring an employee at the verge of retirement. At this juncture, it is directed that the petitioner will file his representation raising his grievance which in turn the respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. It is also directed to the State to see that before retirement of the petitioner, the records with regard to pensionary benefits shall be completed and if there is no impediment the same shall be released expeditiously on retirement.” 6. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, petitioner submitted representation on 01.11.2025 and according to the counsel for petitioner, representation is still pending and no decision is taken till date. In the aforementioned facts, the second petition filed by the petitioner will not lie on the same ground challenging the same order which was earlier challenged in the writ petition bearing WP (S) NO. 12304/2025 and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty with the petitioner to avail the other remedy available under the law. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY