1 2026:CGHC:21585 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3953 of 2026 Yash Kumar Jaiswal S/o Neelam Narayan Jaiswal Aged About 43 Years Occupation -Service Presently Posted And Working As Chief Pharmacist, Nehru Shatabdi Hospital Gevra- Area, District- Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited A -Mini Ratna Category One Company Subsidiary Of Coal India Limited -Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Having Its Registered Office At Seepat Road,- Bilaspur District- Bilaspur C.G. 2 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited- Gevra Area District Korba C.G. 3 - General Manager (Human Resource) South Eastern Coalfield Limited Gevra Area District- Korba C.G. 4 - Staff Officer (Human Resource) South Eastern Coalfield Limited Gevra Area, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.09 15:36:39 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 08/05/2026 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is questioning the transfer order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Nehru Shatabdi Hospital, Gevra to Raigarh Area. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Chief Pharmacist posted in Gevra Area, and has been continuously discharging his duties with utmost sincerity. He submits that vide impugned order dated 27/01/2026, the petitioner has been transferred from Gevra Area to Raigarh on the ground of administrative exigency. According to learned counsel, the said action is retaliatory in nature and has been taken to victimize the petitioner. It is also submitted that the parents of the petitioner are of advanced age, suffering from various ailments, and are undergoing treatment, and the petitioner being their sole caretaker, the impugned transfer order would cause grave hardship and seriously affect their treatment. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 27/01/2026. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 has been issued purely on administrative grounds and in exigency of service. Learned counsel further submits that transfer/posting is an incidence of service and the petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is also contended that the allegations of mala fide and retaliation levelled by the petitioner are baseless and unsupported by any cogent material. It is submitted that no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents while issuing the impugned order and, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. It is a settled law that transfer is an incident of Service and that who should be transferred where, is for the appropriate authority to decide. It is also well settled that unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. 6. In the present case, except for making bald allegations, the petitioner has failed to place any cogent material on record to establish mala fide exercise of power or violation of any statutory provision. The impugned transfer order has been issued by the competent authority in administrative exigency and no illegality or 4 arbitrariness is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE