1 CGHC010312382026 2026:CGHC:36788 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6209 of 2026 Govind Pardhan S/o Ganesh Ram Pardhan Aged About 47 Years Assistant Grade- 02, Presently Posted At Tehsil Office, Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, Residing At House No. 719, Chandmari, Raigarh Raigarh (C.G.) 496001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissoner, Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Collector, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Kharsiya District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Kharsiya, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Ojha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. AG along with Ms. Apurva Nigam, PL ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.20 10:50:36 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No.12927 of 2025 has been decided. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction permitting him to work at his original place of posting, i.e. Tehsil Office, Raigarh. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, a Class-III employee working as Assistant Grade-II, was posted at Tehsil Office, Raigarh. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.07.2024. Subsequently, by order dated 17.01.2025, his suspension was revoked and he was directed to work at Tehsil Office, Kharsia. The record, however, indicates that the petitioner continued to draw his salary from Tehsil Office, Raigarh, from which this Court, while considering the earlier writ petition, noticed that although the petitioner had been directed to work at Kharsia, his posting was not made in the establishment of Tehsil Office, Kharsia. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing WPS No.12927 of 2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 06.04.2026, whereby the concerned authorities were directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, specifically keeping in view Clause 1.5 of the Circular/Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation seeking 3 restoration of his posting at Tehsil Office, Raigarh. The said representation came to be decided by respondent No.4 vide order dated 15.05.2026. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present second round of litigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government itself, by the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, brought an end to the attachment arrangements of district-cadre employees. Clause 1.5 specifically provides that the attachment of district-level employees shall be deemed to have come to an end with effect from 05.06.2025 and that no separate order is required for such termination. It is submitted that despite the aforesaid policy, the petitioner has continued to be retained at Kharsia. It is further submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly brought this aspect to the notice of the authorities, including through representations dated 11.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 04.11.2025 and 05.08.2025, but no effective decision was taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is the sole person available to look after his aged father, who is residing at Raigarh, and that the petitioner had specifically raised the said hardship before the authorities. It is also submitted that the order dated 15.05.2026 does not deal with Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy, though this Court had specifically directed the authorities in the earlier round of litigation to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the said clause. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the earlier writ petition had not resulted in any positive direction for restoration of the petitioner to his original place of posting. According to the learned State counsel, 4 the only direction issued by this Court was to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is submitted that pursuant to the said direction, the representation has been considered and decided by the competent authority vide order dated 15.05.2026. It is, therefore, contended that no further interference is called for in the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6. At the outset, it is necessary to notice the scope of the earlier order passed by this Court in WPS No.12927 of 2025. The earlier writ petition was not finally adjudicated on the entitlement of the petitioner to continue at Kharsia or Raigarh. The authorities were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, specifically with reference to Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, while deciding the representation, the competent authority was required to examine the effect of Clause 1.5 upon the petitioner's continued attachment at Kharsia. 7. Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 assumes significance in the present case. A plain reading of the said clause shows that the attachment arrangements of district-level employees were to be treated as having come to an end with effect from 05.06.2025 and no separate order was contemplated for such termination. The clause further makes provision for transfer, wherever necessity so requires, in accordance with the transfer policy. 5 8. In the present case, the petitioner's placement at Kharsia arose out of the order dated 17.01.2025 passed upon revocation of his suspension. The said arrangement was admittedly prior to the coming into force of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. Once the policy specifically provided that attachment arrangements of district-level employees would stand terminated with effect from 05.06.2025, the continuance of such an attachment thereafter could not be sustained merely on the basis of the earlier order of attachment, unless the petitioner's placement at Kharsia was otherwise supported by a fresh order in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. 9. This aspect becomes all the more significant because the earlier order passed by this Court specifically required the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation with reference to Clause 1.5. The direction was, therefore, not merely to pass an order on the representation mechanically, but to examine the claim in the context of the policy provision specifically noticed by this Court. 10. I have carefully perused the impugned order dated 15.05.2026. The order does not disclose any meaningful consideration of the effect of Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. There is no discussion as to how, despite the automatic termination of attachment arrangements contemplated under the said clause, the petitioner could continue to be retained at Kharsia. There is also no consideration of the fact that the petitioner's salary was being drawn from Tehsil Office, Raigarh, notwithstanding his direction to work at Kharsia. 6 11. The impugned order, therefore, does not satisfy the very direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Merely disposing of a representation, without examining the specific issue which the Court had directed the authority to consider, cannot be regarded as compliance with the judicial direction. It is also relevant that the petitioner has not claimed any new or independent posting at Raigarh in the present proceedings. His case is essentially that, upon cessation of the attachment arrangement under Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy, he should be permitted to work at his original place of posting. The material placed on record shows that prior to his suspension the petitioner was posted at Tehsil Office, Raigarh and, even after revocation of his suspension, his salary continued to be drawn from the said office. 12. In the aforesaid factual background, the continuance of the petitioner at Kharsia merely by relying upon the attachment order dated 17.01.2025, after the policy dated 05.06.2025 had brought such attachment arrangements to an end, cannot be sustained. The respondents were required to give effect to the policy and to consider the petitioner's representation accordingly. 13. While implementing the earlier order, the competent authority failed to properly consider the specific policy provision which this Court had directed it to examine. Further, the impugned order does not furnish reasons explaining the continued retention of the petitioner at Kharsia despite Clause 1.5. The impugned order dated 15.05.2026, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 7 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.05.2026 passed by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and set aside. The attachment arrangement of the petitioner at Tehsil Office, Kharsia, having come to an end in terms of Clause 1.5 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to work at his original place of posting, namely, Tehsil Office, Raigarh. The respondents shall accordingly take necessary consequential steps to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties at Tehsil Office, Raigarh forthwith. 15. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu