1 CGHC010273102026 2026:CGHC:31443 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5444 of 2026 Samshul Haque S/o Shri Ibrarul Haque Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Bhaiyathan Road, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General Manager, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deputy General Manager (Personnel) Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Assistant General Manager (Personnel) Food Corporation Of India, Regional Officer, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Manager Food Corporation Of India, Divisional Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Manager (Depot.) Food Corporation Of India, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.24 18:35:13 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Faisal Akhtar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 23/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the transfer order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been transferred from Divisional Office, Bilaspur to Divisional Office, Raipur under the Food Corporation of India (FCI). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred from Divisional Office, Bilaspur to Divisional Office, Raipur within a short span of time. He submits that the petitioner's wife is also a Government servant working as Assistant Teacher under the State Government in District Surguja, which falls within the Bilaspur FCI Division. By referring to Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy of the Food Corporation of India, learned counsel submits that where one spouse is employed in FCI and the other spouse is employed under the State Government or Central/State PSU, the employee serving in FCI may seek posting at the station where the spouse is posted or, if no post is available there, within the same State. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted representations dated 13.04.2026 and 23.04.2026 (Annexure P/8 Colly.) requesting that he be retained in Bilaspur FCI Division in view of the posting of his wife. However, the said representations have been rejected vide 3 order dated 06.07.2026 without properly considering his claim under Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of another employee, namely Savita Sahu, whose case also fell within the ambit of the said clause, the respondent authorities considered her case. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned transfer order deserves to be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, opposes the submissions made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's case does not fall within Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been transferred by exercising powers under Clause 2.2(g) of the Transfer Policy, which provides that an employee shall ordinarily not continue in one FCI Division for more than fifteen years. Since the petitioner was nearing completion of fifteen years in Bilaspur Division, he has rightly been transferred to Raipur Division in administrative exigency. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy of the Food Corporation of India reveals that where one spouse is employed in 4 FCI and the other spouse is employed under the State Government or Central/State PSU, the employee serving in FCI may submit a request for posting at the station where the spouse is serving or, if no post is available there, within the same State. Thus, the policy itself contemplates consideration of such request by the competent authority. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted representations dated 13.04.2026 and 23.04.2026 specifically requesting that he be retained in Bilaspur Division on the ground that his wife is serving in District Surguja, which falls within the Bilaspur Division. However, from perusal of the order dated 06.07.2026 rejecting the petitioner's representation, it appears that the competent authority proceeded to consider the petitioner's request as based on medical grounds, whereas the principal grievance raised by the petitioner was for consideration of his case under Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy. Thus, the petitioner's claim has not been examined in its proper perspective. 7. It is well settled that where a policy confers a right upon an employee to seek consideration of his request by the competent authority, such request is required to be considered objectively and in accordance with the transfer policy. In the present case, since the petitioner's specific claim under Clause 11.2(d) has not been duly considered, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves reconsideration by the competent authority. 5 8. In view of the above and considering the prima facie grievance of the petitioner that his wife is a Government servant posted as an Assistant Teacher in District Surguja, which falls within the Bilaspur Division of the FCI, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.3, to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and Clause 11.2(d) of the Transfer Policy of the FCI; and also keeping in mind the petitioner's contention that the case of another similarly situated employee has been considered by the Department under the said clause and take a decision, preferably within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Till such decision is taken, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the present petitioner, shall remain stayed. 10. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar