1 / 4 2026:CGHC:634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4 of 2026 G.S. Bedi S/o Shri Manmohan Singh Bedi Aged About 57 Years Working As Principal At Government Polytechnic Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Skill Development, Technical Education And Employment, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Shri Raman Mehar Aged About 60 Years R/o Near Surya Mall, Surya Vihar, Kohka Junwani Road, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.08 10:47:47 +0530 2 / 4 06/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash letter dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-10), and direct the respondent No.-2 to comply order of transfer dated 30.06.2025 issued by the respondent No.-1, within one week. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to pass similar order passed in Writ Petition (S) No.12648/2025 dated 07.11.2025 passed in matter of Ram Prasad Kathlane Vs State of Chhattisgarh & other. within one weeks.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding post of Principal and posted at Govt. Polytechnic, Jashpur. Vide order dated 30.06.2025 issued by the State Govt., petitioner is transferred to Govt. Polytechnic Mahasamund on his own request. 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]. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that according to submission of learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner is not relieved for want of reliever. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3 / 4 5. Undisputedly, petitioner is transferred vide order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, transferring petitioner from Govt. Polytechnic Jashpur to Govt. Polytechnic Mahasamund. 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 4 / 4 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." 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 in any manner was 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. Impugned order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-10) is set aside. Respondents are directed to relieve the petitioner to join at his transferred placed i.e. Govt. Polytechnic Mahasamund within 10 days. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen