1 / 3 2026:CGHC:7857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7247 of 2024 • Yuvraj Sinha S/o Shri Mishri Lal Sinha Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kota, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po And Ps Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Under Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Po and Ps Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Rajiv Kumar Tiwari Presently Posted As Development Extension Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent-State For Respondent No. 3 : : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 12/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 issued by Under Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development, Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-1) to the extent it relates to the present petitioner. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts and circumstance of the present case, in the ends of justice.” PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is appointed on the post of Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 06.04.2024 and is posted in the office of Janpad Panchayat, Kota, District Bilaspur. According to the appointment order, period of probation is of 3 years and during period of probation, respondent No. 1 has issued order of transfer, Annexure P-1, along with other employees transferring the petitioner from the office of Janpad Panchayat, Kota to Janpad Panchayat, Saraipali, District Mahasamund. For the purpose of issuance of transfer order of an employee, State Government has formulated transfer policy in which there is categorical mention that the employees who are in probation are not to be transfer from one place to another. He also contended that in the order of appointment also it is specifically mentioned that during probation period employee/ applicant will not be transferred. In support of his contention, he referred Clause 13 of the appointment order. He next contended that Respondent No. 3 who is holding post of Development Extension Officer, could not have been transferred to be posted as Chief Executive Officer and therefore also the order of transfer is bad in law. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that after issuance of transfer order, petitioner has directly filed this writ petition without submitting any representation raising grievance before the appropriate authority. She however submits that in the reply they have pleaded that the order of transfer is issued in month of September 2024 considering urgency in the matter. The transfer policy permits for issuance of such transfer order. In support of her contention, she referred Clause 4.1 of the transfer policy dated 12.08.2022. 4. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 would submit that he is not disputing the factual position as raised by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to period of probation based on the pleadings made in the writ petition. He further submits that in the order of transfer Annexure P-1, 3 / 3 one Laxmikant Kaushik was also transferred in place of petitioner who was also working as in-charge C.E.O. Janpad Pnachayat Takhatpur to in-charge C.E.O. of Janpad Panchayat Mungeli. If for any reasons as pleaded in the writ petition, writ petition is to be allowed then respondent-State be directed to pass appropriate orders for posting of petitioner. He submits that petitioner has already completed three years of service as of now. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Consideration before this Court is as to whether on the date of issuance of order of transfer dated 24.10.2024 in view of the period of probation which is in continuing of petitioner, condition of the appointment order, whether he could have been transferred or not? The clause mentioned in the appointment order of not to transfer any employee on probation is for many reasons including the reason that assessment of the work of concerned employee under probation cannot be made properly for passing further order of their confirmation and therefore in the opinion of this Court, as mentioned in the order of appointment of petitioner, his transfer from one place to another is not sustainable and accordingly order of transfer Annexure P-1 dated 24.10.2024 sofar as it relates to transfer of petitioner is quashed. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. It is for the respondent-State Government to pass appropriate orders with regard to posting of Respondent No. 3. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE