1 CGHC010271692026 2026:CGHC:30205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5393 of 2026 Kaushal Kumar Verma S/o Vishal Kumar Verma Aged About 61 Years Posted As In charge Block Education Officer, Block Bhagbahara, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Devnarayan Diwan Posted In The Office Of Block Education Officer, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.17 11:48:27 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Under Secretary, School Education Department and further seeks quashment of the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as In-charge Block Education Officer (BEO), Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund, has challenged the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 whereby he has been transferred to the post of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur on the ground of administrative exigency. He submits that the petitioner was assigned the charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara vide order dated 27.07.2021 and has been discharging his duties without any complaint or adverse remark. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer has been made only to accommodate the private respondent No.4 and the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.09.2026 and, therefore, in view of the Transfer Policy, 2025, he ought not to have been transferred at the verge of his retirement. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned transfer order and the consequential relieving order be quashed. 3 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the substantive post of the petitioner is Librarian, Central Library, Raipur. He submits that the petitioner was merely entrusted with the additional charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara in the year 2021 on account of administrative exigency and, by the impugned order, he has only been directed to join his parent cadre. He further submits that the petitioner is a resident of District Raipur and no prejudice would be caused to him by such posting. So far as the petitioner's contention regarding his imminent retirement is concerned, learned State counsel submits that there shall be no difficulty in processing and finalizing the petitioner's pension papers and other retiral benefits. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner substantively belongs to the cadre of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur. It is also not in dispute that he was merely entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara vide order dated 27.07.2021 on account of administrative exigency only. By the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, the petitioner has only been directed to join in his substantive post and by withdrawing the charge of Block Education Officer from the petitioner, the same has been assigned to another officer. 4 6. The contention of the petitioner that the transfer has been made to accommodate the private respondent is not substantiated by any cogent material placed on record. Merely because the petitioner is due to retire on 30.09.2026 would not create any vested right in his favour to continue on the charge of Block Education Officer, particularly when he has been directed to join in his parent cadre. This Court also does not find any violation of the Transfer Policy, 2025 warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide in the impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) or the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2). 8. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in processing the pension papers and releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after his retirement. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar