1 2026:CGHC:26021 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4735 of 2026 Laxman Singh S/o Shri Prabhunath Singh, Aged About 58 Years Residing At 173, I A S Officer's Colony, Dharampura, Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department,of Forest And Climate Change Department, Ministry At Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P. S. - Rakhi, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, And Head Of Forest Force Aranya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Shri Animesh Goverdhan Estate Officer, In The Office Of Prinipal Chief Conservator And Forest Force Chief, Arnya Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Dist - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.27 12:22:15 +0530 2 25/06/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned transfer order dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it relates to him, and also seeks quashment of the order dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner has challenged his transfer from the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Aranya Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh, to the post of In-charge Conservator of Forests, Work Planning Division, Bilaspur. He submits that the petitioner is an Indian Forest Service (IFS) Officer and, therefore, any service dispute concerning him is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As such, the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 3. Having considered the submission advanced by learned State counsel and upon perusal of the pleadings available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner pertains to a service matter concerning an Indian Forest Service Officer, for which a specific statutory remedy is available before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3 4. It is well settled that when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to an aggrieved employee before a competent forum, this Court would ordinarily refrain from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent forum, in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar