1 2026:CGHC:11617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14043 of 2025 1 - Vijay Lal Azaad S/o Dewcharan Azaad Aged About 46 Years Training Officer, Industrial Training Institute Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Technical Education Employment And Training Block- 04, First Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Training Superintended Office Of Training Superintended/nodal Officer Industrial Training Institute Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Principal Government Industrial Training Institute Belha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Principal Government Industrial Training Institute Koni District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Shri Ashok Kumar Kaushik Training Officer, Driver Cum Mechanic Government Industrial Training Institute Koni,district- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 03/03 /2026 2 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to summon the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the office of concerned respondents by issuing a writ of certiorari for kind perusal, and after perusal of record may kindly be pleased to commend the respondents by ordering the R/2 to get rectified the transfer list and further be ordered to restore the relieving order 03.07.2025 by setting-aside the cancellation reliving order dated 03.07.2025 and the petitioner be allowed to join his transferred place ITI Belha by issuing a writ of mandamus. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioners against the respondents, and. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is holding the post of Training Officer (Driver-cum-Mechanic) while working at Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) Surajpur, District - Surajpur, is transferred to Industrial Training Institute (I.T.I.) Belha, District – Bilaspur on his own expenses. The order was passed by the State Government on 30.06.2025. Initially, the Training Superintendent, I.T.I. Surajpur, District – Surajpur has issued a letter of relieving in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2025 on 01.07.2025, subsequently, vide office order dated 03.07.2025, the Training Superintendent has canceled the relieving letter dated 01.07.2025 and thereby, petitioner could not be able to join the transferred place of posting. He contended that once, the order is passed by the State Government, it is for the Respondent No. 3 to relieve the petitioner for his joining at the transferred place. 3. Non-relieving the petitioner is highly arbitrary. He also pointed out that according to the information gathered by him from Respondent No.3, petitioner could not be able to relieve because, there is some typographical error in the order of transfer of one Ashok Kumar Kuashik 3 i.e. Respondent No. 6 who has been transferred to I.T.I. Surajpur, District – Surajpur mentioning that his present place of posting to be I.T.I. Belha, District - Bilaspur whereas, posting of Respondent No. 6 is at I.T.I. Koni, District – Bilaspur. He submits that as the reliever has not joined the transferred place of posting, therefore, the petitioner could not have been relieved. He also pointed out that when the case came up for hearing on 02.01.2026, State Counsel was directed to seek instructions, however, till date no document is placed on record. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would submit she may be granted further 02 weeks time to seek instructions and make her submission. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The claim of petitioner is not against any order challenging it on merits, but petitioner has filed this writ petition raising his grievance that the petitioner has not been relieved in compliance of the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). 7. According to the pleadings made in the writ petition and the submission of counsel for the petitioner, it appears that there is no typographical error in the order of transfer of petitioner, but some typographical error in the place of posting of the Respondent No. 6 who has been transferred in place of the petitioner as showing him to be reliever. The documents enclosed along with the writ petition would show that the Principal, I.T.I., Belha, District – Bilaspur wrote a letter to the Principal, I.T.I., Koni, District – Bilaspur and he wrote a letter to the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur. The letter (Annexure P/6) is a letter/representation submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 1 on 14.07.2025 and before the Respondent No. 2 on 25.08.2025. Further, before the 4 Respondent No. 1 on 08.09.2025. It appears that the petitioner submitted representation lastly to the Respondent No. 1 on 01.12.2025, none of the representations of the petitioner is considered and decided. 8. The case of non-relieving the employee transferred by the order of the State Government because no reliever has joined came up for consideration in case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2015 (4) CGLJ 182 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed thus:- 9. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “17. It would not be out of place to mention here that the guidelines issued by the State Government in relation to transfer of the employees are merely executive instructions and are not enforceable by the Court of law. Thus, only on the strength of any guideline mentioned in the transfer policy, the State Government cannot take a stand that unless the reliever is posted in place of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be relieved. Once the employee has been transferred, execution of the said order is to be ensured by the State Government unless and until the said order is varied by the State Government, either by cancelling or modifying it. In the present case, the transfer order of the petitioner has neither been modified nor been cancelled. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government is under an obligation to ensure enforcement of the transfer order. In the matters of Sreedam Chandra Ghosh (supra) it has been observed by the Apex Court in para 6 as under: "6. It is then contended that the transfer orders are to be enforced by the Government as per the rules in vogue and the High Court cannot interfere with these orders. We are unable to appreciate this contention also. When the Government views non-compliance of the transfer order as a serious indiscipline on the part of the erring officer and when the person complains of the non-compliance to the court, the court necessarily has to give effect to the order and give directions for enforcement thereof. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition." 10.From the documents enclosed along with the writ petition, it appears that there is some typographical error in the place of posting of the Respondent No. 6 on the date of issuance of the transfer order transferring him to I.T.I. Sarguja that itself would not be a ground to not 5 relieve the petitioner to join the place of his transfer which is ordered by the Respondent No. 1/State Government. It is not the case of petitioner or the State Counsel that order of transfer of petitioner is amended, modified or canceled. From the documents also, it is not reflecting that the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) so far as it relates to petitioner is amended or modified. 11.In the aforementioned facts of the case, the writ petition is allowed in part. The Respondent No. 3 is directed to relieve the petitioner within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY