1 CGHC010280412026 2026:CGHC:31650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5585 of 2026 Manmohan Lal Mishra S/o Shri Balkrishna Mishra Aged About 61 Years Posted As Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh Forest Division, Raigarh Chhattisgarh, R/o- Chakradhar Nagar, Bangla Para, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2. Committee Of Senior Secretaries Through Its Chairman/ Additional Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Secretary Forest And Climate Change Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Aranya Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Ccf Office, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 6. Divisional Forest Officer Raigarh Division, Divisional Forest Office, Kelo Vihar Raigarh Chhattisgarh 7. Divisional Forest Officer Mungeli Division, Divisional Forest Office, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Add. A.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.25 11:20:15 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3238 of 2026, which was disposed of by order dated 15.04.2026 granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Committee constituted under the State Transfer Policy. The Committee was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation pointing out that he had been transferred at the fag end of his service, that his tenure at the present place of posting was only about nine months, and that implementation of the transfer order would seriously prejudice him and disrupt his family. It is further submitted that the Transfer Committee, without considering the specific grounds raised in the representation and without assigning any reasons, rejected the same by passing a cryptic and non-speaking order. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the interim protection granted by this Court on 15.04.2026, the petitioner has continued at his present place of posting. It is argued that if the impugned transfer order is now implemented, when only about 9 months of service remain before his retirement, the petitioner would suffer irreparable hardship. 3 2. Learned State counsel supports the decision of the Transfer Committee and submits that the transfer was made on account of administrative exigency. However, on a specific query put by this Court, he is unable to point out from the impugned order as to whether the Committee considered the petitioner's grievance or recorded any reasons while rejecting the representation. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The earlier order dated 15.04.2026 passed by this Court required the Transfer Committee to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with the Transfer Policy and to take an appropriate decision. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Committee has rejected the representation without adverting to the specific grounds raised by the petitioner and without assigning any reasons. The impugned order is, therefore, a non-speaking order and does not disclose any application of mind. 5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is due to retire within about 9 months. Clause 3.12 of the State Transfer Policy provides that an employee who is due to retire within one year may, at his/her option, be posted in the home district. The grievance raised by the petitioner with reference to the aforesaid policy provision has not been considered by the 4 Transfer Committee at all. The action of the Committee, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Transfer Committee rejecting the petitioner's representation, as well as the consequential transfer order impugned in the present petition, deserve to be and are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his present place of posting till his superannuation, unless any exceptional circumstance, permissible in law, necessitates a different course. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti