1 2026:CGHC:3249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 586 of 2026 1 - Vinay Kumar Tripathi, S/o Shri S.K. Tripathi Aged About 38 Years Assistant Director, Horticulture, R/o Triveni Vihar, Old Gaurela, P.S. And Tahsil - Gaurela, Distt. Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Development, Welfare And Biotechnology, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director O/o Director, Department Of Horticulture And Field Forestry, Indrawati Bhawan, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector O/o Collector, Koriya, Distt. Koriya (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (The cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, G.A. S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 20/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased direct the respondent No.2, Director, Department of Horticulture BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 and Field Forestry and also Respondent No.3, Collector, Koriya to relieve the petitioner to join at his transfer place i.e. District Kabirdham as Assistant Director, Horticulture. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to grant any other relief, which is deemed to be fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.06.2025 petitioner has been transferred from the office of Assistant Director, Hotriculture, Koriya to office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, District Kabirdham on his own expenses. However, till date, petitioner is not relieved. He submits that when once order of transfer is issued by the State Government, then the concerned authority/subordinate officers are duty bound to relieve the petitioner in compliance of order dated 30.06.2025. In support of his submission, he places reliance upon the decision in the case of Ms. Manisha Agrawal Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. [ 2015 (4) CGLJ 182]. He further contended that petitioner has submitted representation before the authorities on 07.07.2025, 18.07.2025 and 08.12.2025, however, till date no decision has been taken. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. However, upon putting query he submits that according to his instruction, transfer order of petitioner has not been modified or cancelled by competent authority. He also submits that petitioner is not relieved for want of reliever. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, petitioner is transferred vide order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, transferring petitioner from the office of Assistant 3 Director, Horticulture, Koriya to office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, District Kabirdham. 6. Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Manisha Agrawal (supra) has observed as under: “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 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." 4 7. In the case at hand, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that after passing of transfer order dated 30.06.2025, order of transfer of petitioner is cancelled or amended. In absence of which, respondents are duty bound to relieve the petitioner for transferred place. 8. For the foregoing discussions, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner to join at his transferred placed i.e. office of Assistant Director, Horticulture, District Kabirdham within 10 days. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram