1 CGHC010281422026 2026:CGHC:31657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5588 of 2026 Smt. Sushila Karma W/o Shri Abhishek Kumar, Force No. 172414245 Aged About 37 Years R/o Shiv Ram House No. 1387 Saroj Mansion, Chhatrapati Shivaji Ward No. 35, Beside Mpm Hospital Aghanpur, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Pin 494001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2 - The Director General Central Reserve Police Force, Block No. 1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003. 3 - Inspector General of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Chhattisgarh Sector, Sector 17, Near Phq, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 4 - Deputy Inspector General of Police Central Reserve Police Force, Range Jagdalpur, Main Road, Chhattisgarh 494001 5 - The Commandant 241, Bastariya Battalion CRPF, Sedwa, Keshloor Tokapal, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh, Pin 494442 6 - The Commandant 232 (Mahila) Battalion C R P F, Salboni, West Midnapur, West Bengal- Pin- 721147 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mallick Sudip Ravi, Advocate For Respondents/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, CGC (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 24/07/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.25 12:25:24 +0530 2 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 14.01.2026, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from 241 Battalion CRPF (Bastariya Battalion), Jagdalpur to 232 (Mahila) Battalion CRPF, Salboni, West Midnapore, West Bengal, as well as the speaking order dated 14.07.2026, whereby the petitioner's representation came to be rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was recruited under the special Bastariya Recruitment Policy and was posted in 241 Battalion CRPF (Bastariya Battalion). It is submitted that the tenure of Bastariya Battalion personnel stood extended up to SCT-2027. Despite such extension, the petitioner has been transferred solely on the ground that her husband, who is also serving in the CRPF, was transferred. It is contended that neither the petitioner nor her husband ever applied for couple posting under the Standing Order No.04/2022 and, therefore, the respondents could not have forced the petitioner to accept a couple posting. It is further submitted that in the earlier round of litigation in WPS No.4269 of 2026, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned order. However, while rejecting the representation, the authority has failed to consider the petitioner's specific objections and has passed an order which is arbitrary and contrary to the applicable policy. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already completed her tenure in Bastariya Battalion and has rightly been transferred in accordance with the transfer policy. It is further submitted that since the petitioner's husband was also 3 transferred, the petitioner was posted at the same place under the Couple Posting Policy. It is also contended that the post of Hairdresser was not available at the existing place of posting and, therefore, the petitioner was transferred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner was admittedly recruited under the special Bastariya Recruitment Policy. It is also not in dispute that the tenure of local Bastariya personnel stood extended up to SCT-2027. The transfer order dated 14.01.2026 was initially challenged before this Court in WPS No.4269 of 2026, which was disposed of on 15.05.2026 directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the representation was rejected by the impugned speaking order dated 14.07.2026. 6. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner has been transferred under the Couple Posting Policy, as her husband was also transferred. However, this contention does not find support from the policy itself. Clause 7(iv) of Standing Order No.04/2022, which has been placed on record by the petitioner, merely provides that where both husband and wife are members of the CRPF, they may apply for couple posting and such request may be considered for posting to a nearby place. The provision is only an enabling provision conferring an option upon the employees to seek couple posting. It nowhere mandates that husband and wife must necessarily be 4 posted together irrespective of their choice. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, neither the petitioner nor her husband had submitted any application seeking couple posting. In absence of such an application, the respondents could not have compelled the petitioner to accept a couple posting by treating the enabling provision as mandatory. Thus, the very basis assigned by the respondents for effecting the petitioner's transfer is contrary to the policy governing the field. 8. The second submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has been transferred because the post of Hairdresser is not available at 241 Battalion. This contention also does not merit acceptance. It is pertinent to note that while disposing of the earlier writ petition, this Court had specifically directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. If the absence of the post of Hairdresser was indeed the justification for the transfer, the same ought to have been examined and recorded while deciding the representation. However, a careful perusal of the order dated 14.07.2026 shows that there is not even a whisper regarding the alleged non-availability of the post of Hairdresser. The competent authority has neither considered nor returned any finding on the said issue. Therefore, the respondents cannot now seek to sustain the impugned action on a ground which does not find place in the order impugned before this Court. 9. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned transfer 5 order dated 14.01.2026 and the consequential order dated 14.07.2026 suffer from non-application of mind. The respondents have misconstrued the provision relating to couple posting by treating an enabling provision as mandatory and have also failed to consider the petitioner's representation in the manner directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. 10. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is allowed. The transfer order dated 14.01.2026 and the speaking order dated 14.07.2026 are hereby quashed and set aside. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu