1 CGHC010256432026 2026:CGHC:36067 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5134 of 2026 Dinesh Dubey S/o Late Radheshyam Dubey, Aged About 56 Years R/o Near Dr. Dixit Nursing Home, Kududand, Police Station - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur (Chhttisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District -Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Commissioner Excise Commercial Tax And G S T Bhawan, First Floor Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Assistant Commissioner Excise District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl.A.G. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 13/08/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 22/06/2026 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.08.14 18:36:50 +0530 2 (Annexure P-1) passed in his respect, whereby he has been transferred from Bilaspur to Balrampur-Ramanujganj. 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is holding the post of General Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Tritiya Varg Shashkiya Karmachari Sangh, Zila Shakha, Bilaspur, and is presently working as Head Clerk in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, has been transferred from Bilaspur to Balrampur- Ramanujganj vide order dated 22/06/2026 (Annexure P-1). It is contended that the circulars issued by the State Government specifically provide that an office bearer of a State or District Employees' Union shall not be transferred outside the district/union during two consecutive terms of his office. Since the petitioner is an elected office bearer of the said employees' union, the impugned order of transfer is contrary to the aforesaid circulars. (b) Learned counsel further submits that the details of the elected office bearers of the said Sangh were duly forwarded to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, on 29/09/2025, which has also been brought on record along with the rejoinder and covering memo dated 07/07/2026. Learned counsel would next submit that Clause 2(c) of the circular dated 24/06/1996 mandates that, before transferring an office bearer of any employees' association, permission of the next higher officer is required to be obtained and communicated to the Headquarter. In the present case, no such permission was obtained, which has also been confirmed to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. It is, 3 therefore, submitted that the impugned transfer order, being contrary to the aforesaid circulars and as such the same deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that although the petitioner claims that the details of the elected office bearer were furnished to the department, the communication dated 23/07/2026, available at page No.26 of the return, indicates that the Additional Commissioner, Excise, intimated the Assistant Commissioner, Bilaspur, that no information regarding the election of the petitioner as an office bearer of the employees' union was available in the office of the Commissioner, Excise, Raipur. Learned counsel further submits that the circulars relied upon by the petitioner, though containing certain restrictions with regard to transfer of an office bearer, are not mandatory in nature. It is also submitted that the impugned transfer order was issued with the coordination of Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State. He further points out that the petitioner has been posted at Bilaspur since 2009 and, during the entire period, was transferred outside the district only for a short period of eleven months. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record. 5. The circular dated 24/06/1996 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which was subsequently adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh on 25/08/2004, prescribes certain restrictions governing the transfer of office bearers of district or State-level units of employees' unions. The State has not disputed the applicability of the aforesaid circulars. The principal stand taken by the respondents is that the requisite intimation 4 regarding the elected office bearer was not furnished to the Commissioner, Excise and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim protection of the restrictions contained in the said circulars. 6. However, from the documents available on record, it appears that the details of the district employees' union, including the elected office bearers, were furnished to the Assistant Commissioner, Excise, on 29/09/2025. It further appears that similar intimation was also furnished to the Commercial Tax Department. The said documents have been brought on record by the petitioner along with the covering memo dated 07/07/2026 as well as by way of rejoinder. 7. More importantly, it is not disputed that, prior to transferring the petitioner, the permission contemplated under Clause 2(c) of the circular dated 24/06/1996 was not obtained from the next higher authority. The requirement of obtaining such permission being specifically incorporated in the circular, the respondents cannot justify the impugned order merely by contending that the details of the elected office bearer were not subsequently communicated to the Commissioner, Excise. The requirement prescribed under Clause 2(c) operates independently and was required to be complied with before effecting the transfer of the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that while transferring the petitioner from Bilaspur to Balrampur-Ramanujganj vide order dated 22/06/2026 (Annexure P-1), the restrictions and conditions prescribed under the aforesaid circulars were not complied with. In particular, the mandatory requirement of obtaining prior permission from the next 5 higher authority before transferring an office bearer has admittedly not been complied with. 9. Consequently, the impugned transfer order dated 22/06/2026 (Annexure P-1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. However, liberty is reserved to the State authorities to pass such order as may be permissible in accordance with law and the policy governing transfer, if so advised. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep