1 2026:CGHC:799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14166 of 2025 1. Smt. Chandra Kiran Kuldeep W/o Ram Bhuan Kuldeep Aged About 44 Years Working As Rural Health Coordinator (Female), Sub-Health Centre, Fulpad, Block- Antagarh, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3. The Block Medical Officer Antagarh, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4. The Block Medical Officer Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 06/1/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with limited prayer that respondent No.3 be directed to forthwith relieve petitioner SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.01.06 18:56:55 +0530 2 from his present place of posting to join at transferred place in compliance of transfer order dated 30.6.2025 (Annexure P-1). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.6.2025 petitioner, who is working as Rural Health Coordinator (Female) and posted at Sub-Health Centre, Fulpad, Block Antagarh, District North Bastar Kanker, is transferred to Sub-Health Centre Karmoti, Block Bhanupratappur. After passing of transfer order, when relieving order of petitioner is not issued for some time, she submitted representation dated 4.6.2025 (Annexure P-2) before respondent No.3 requesting him to relieve her from present place of posting to join at transferred place, but till date no decision is taken on petitioner's representation. He submits that in light of decision in case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & ors, reported in (2015) 4 CGLJ 182, respondents are bound to relieve petitioner immediately, particularly when transfer order of petitioner is not varied by Competent Authority either by amending or modifying it. He contended that based on decision in Ms. Manisha Agrawal's case (supra), various orders are passed by Co-ordinate Benches in identical cases where despite issuance of transfer order employees are not relieved to join at transferred place. In such a situation, he submits that at this stage grievance of petitioner would get redressed if a 3 direction is issued to respondent No.3 to consider and decide petitioner's representation / application dated 4.6.2025 (Annexure P-4) at the earliest. 3. Learned State Counsel does not dispute that petitioner is transferred vide order dated 30.6.2025 as also the fact that various orders are passed by Co-ordinate Benches while dealing with identical issue. He submits that he is having no objection to limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused documents filed along with writ petition. 5. In case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal (supra), while dealing with non-relieving of a government servant pursuant to her transfer by competent authority, this High Court observed thus;- “5.Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to clause 2.4 and 2.6 of the transfer policy for the year 2014 (Annexure P/7) which reads as under:- 2-4- foHkkxksa dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd ;fn vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa ds ‘kkldh; lsod dk xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= esa LFkkukUrj djus ds izLrko gS] rks mlds ,othnkj dk Hkh izLrko ¼tks xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= ls gks½ vfuok;Zr% j[kk tk,A ‘kgjh {ks= ,oa xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa fjfDr;kas dk tks vlarqyu ¼becSysal½ gS] mls larqfyr ¼cSysal½ djus dk fo’ks”k /;ku j[kk tk,A 4 vk’k; ;g gS fd xzkeh.k {ks= esa ftrus izfr’kr in fjDr gS] ‘kgjh {ks=ksa esa yxHkx mlh ds vuq:i in fjDr jg ldsaA ,slh fLFkfr esa fufeZr u gks fd ‘kgjh {ks=ksa eas yxHkx lHkh in Hkjsa gks rFkk xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa dkQh fjfDr;kW cuh jgsaA 2-6 vuqlwfpr {ks= ds ‘kkldh; lsod dk xSj&vuqlwfpr {ks= esa LFkkukarj gksus ij mlds LFkku ij ,othnkj ds vk tkus ds mijkar gh mls dk;ZeqDr fd;k tk,A ;g Hkh lqfuf’pr fd;k tk, fd vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fjDr in Hkjs tk,aA** 7. 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 untill 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 matter of 5 Sreedam Chandra Ghosh4 (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 orders and give directions for enforcement thereof. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the petition.” 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is transferred by the State Government vide order dated 30.6.2025, which is not amended or modified, and till date petitioner has not been relieved to join at transferred place; decision in case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal (supra) in which it was held that authority is bound to relieve the employee immediately, unless transfer order of such employee is varied by Competent Authority either by cancelling or modifying it, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to ensure that the order dated 30.6.2025, so far as it relates to petitioner, be 6 complied with at the earliest, preferably within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not modified or cancelled by the competent authority. 7. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-