1 2026:CGHC:27559-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4904 of 2026 Laxmi Narayan Pidda S/o Shri Ramjee Ram Pidda Aged About 49 Years Presently Posted As - Scientist E Sfc Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary Dd ( R And D), Chairman Drdo, Ministry Of Defence, South Block, New Delhi – 110011. 2 -Director General ( Mss), Defence Research And Development Organisation ( Drdo), Drdo Bhawan, New Delhi -110011. 3 - Director Of Personal /joint Director ( Pers), Drds -Iii, Defence Research And Development Organisation ( Drdo), Drdo Bhawan, New Delhi -110011. 4 - Director Advanced Systems Laboratory ( Asl), Hyderabad – 500058. 5 - General Manager S F Complex, ( Sfc), Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General alongwith Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge ORDER ON BOARD Per Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge 03/072026 AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.15 18:00:32 +0530 2 1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the final order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in Original Application No. 200/1347/2025 whereby the Original Application preferred by the Petitioner challenging the transfer order dated 05.12.2025 was dismissed; the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Joint Director (Pers), DRDS- III, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner in compliance of the interim order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the learned Tribunal; and the transfer order dated 05.12.2025 issued by the respondents transferring the Petitioner from SF Complex (SFC), Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh to Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL), Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist ‘B’ in the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and was initially posted at the High Energy Materials Research Laboratory (HEMRL), Pune, Maharashtra, where he underwent induction training. Upon completion of training, the petitioner was posted to SF Company (SFC), Jagdalpur. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 01.07.2013 and thereafter as Scientist ‘E’ w.e.f. 01.07.2022 and is presently working as Scientist ‘E’ and Group Head, Mechanical Engineering Division (MFD) at SFC, Jagdalpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer order dated 05.12.2025 is not a bona fide administrative transfer but is a retaliatory measure adopted by the respondents on account of the complaints made and grievances raised by the Petitioner against caste-based discrimination, harassment and irregularities prevailing in the respondent organisation. He further submits that the impugned transfer order is not supported by any genuine administrative exigency and the plea of “public interest” sought to be 3 advanced by the respondents is wholly illusory. He also submits that the impugned transfer order is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the respondents’ own transfer policy. It is next contended that the petitioner never applied for transfer nor expressed any willingness to be transferred during the relevant transfer cycle. As such, impugned transfer order is the culmination of a continuing pattern of discriminatory and mala fide treatment meted out to the Petitioner by the respondent authorities. It is further contended that the respondents failed to consider that the Petitioner’s aged parents are dependent upon him for their medical care and day-to-day needs. It is next contended that the petitioner’s children are studying in Class XII and IX and the impugned inter-State transfer would seriously affect their education and academic continuity. The respondents also failed to consider that the petitioner’s wife recently underwent surgery and requires continuous care and assistance from the Petitioner. The other similarly situated scientists have continued at SFC, Jagdalpur for comparable or longer periods, but only Petitioner has been singled out for transfer without any ratinal basis, thereby violating the principles of equality and fair treatment. 4. On the other hand Mr. Mishra, learned Dy. Solicitor General supports the impugned judgment and submits that transfer is the exigency of service and the petitioner was posted in the present place of posting for more than 17 years. He submits that the impugned transfer order is not a mala fide transfer, rather it was passed looking to the exigency of the service, therefore, no interference is required in this case. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal while considering the 4 submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner by recording findings in paragraph 8 and 9, which reads thus:- “8. Thus, it is a settled law that transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by malafides of infraction of any professed norms of principle governing the transfer which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personal management of all government departments. This must be left in public interest to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated. 9. In the matters of State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "[E]ven administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to 5 approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision”. 7. The learned CAT has also rejected the contention of the petitioner with regard to allegation of malafide against officer of the respondents holding that no specific pleading has been made by the petitioner in this regard. So far as the contention of the transfer during mid academic is concerned, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. vs. S.S.Kaurav 1 also did not find favour with the submission raised by petitioner's counsel. The learned CAT has discussed in detail all the aspects of the matter, which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant hereinabove while dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. 8. From perusal of the transfer order, it appears that it contents transfer of many other persons/employees. It is not a case, the petitioner alone is transferred from SF Complex (SFC), Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh to Advanced Systems Laboratory (ASL), Hyderabad. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner 1 (1995) 3 SCC 270 6 has been posted at DRDO for the last 18 years and has not been transferred out from Jagdalpur from the date of his initial appointment; and he cannot claim as a matter of right to remain posted at the same place. As such, we are of the opinion that learned CAT has not committed any illegality or perversity in the dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 10. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ami