1 CGHC010278992026 2026:CGHC:31147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5529 of 2026 Homan Lal Nag S/o Late Makhan Lal Nag Aged About 61 Years R/o Village- Jaundh, Post- Pod, Tahsil- Gobra, Nawapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Additional Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 22/07/2026 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.23 10:34:28 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the transfer order dated 11.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Council, Kurud to Nagar Panchayat, Kopra. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Revenue Inspector at Municipal Council, Kurud, has challenged the transfer order dated 11.07.2026, whereby he has been transferred from Municipal Council, Kurud to Nagar Panchayat, Kopra. He submits that the petitioner is aged about 61 years and 8 months and is due to retire within a period of four months. By referring to Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 issued on 05.06.2025 by the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, learned counsel submits that the policy specifically provides that an employee having less than one year of service left before retirement should ordinarily not be transferred. Though the said policy is not directly applicable to the employees of autonomous bodies, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the State Government itself and, therefore, the authorities ought to have adhered to the said policy. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned transfer order be quashed. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner, being an employee of the Municipal Council, is liable to be transferred on administrative exigencies. It is further submitted that no 3 interference with the impugned transfer order is warranted. Accordingly, 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. Perusal of Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 clearly shows that a Government servant having less than one year of service remaining before attaining the age of superannuation shall ordinarily not be transferred. 6. In view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner is due to retire within a period of about four months. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, deserves to be interfered with. 7. Accordingly, the impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar