1 CGHC010107432026 2026:CGHC:37231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2583 of 2026 Bhuwal Das Sultan S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sultan Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Boriyakala, Post Mana Camp, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Vikas Ayukt Office, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services Khairagarh, Distt. Khairagarh Chhuikhadan Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 19/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the transfer order dated 11.03.2026, whereby he has been transferred from Rural Engineering Services Division, Khairagarh to Janpad Panchayat Kuakonda, District Dantewada. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.20 10:35:14 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers within a short span. The petitioner was transferred to Gariyaband in the year 2022, thereafter transferred to Durg in March, 2024, again transferred to Khairagarh in May, 2025, and by the impugned order dated 11.03.2026, he has once again been transferred, i.e. within about ten months of his posting at Khairagarh. It is contended that such frequent transfers are contrary to the transfer policy and cause undue hardship to the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the post held by the petitioner is transferable and the impugned order has been issued on account of administrative exigency. It is further submitted that the impugned order covers as many as 22 Sub Engineers and, therefore, cannot be said to be directed against the petitioner alone. He would next submit that as far as the alleged transfer to Khairagarh is concerned, on account of closure of Durg Division and creation of new R.E.S. Division the petitioner has been posted in the R.E.S. Division Khairagarh and as such the same cannot be termed as a transfer order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. In the present case, the service particulars placed on record show that the petitioner has been subjected to successive transfers, namely in the years 2022, 2024, 2025 and again by the impugned order dated 11.03.2026. More importantly, the latest transfer has been ordered within about ten months of his posting at Khairagarh. The repeated transfers within such short intervals, particularly when considered in the backdrop of the 3 transfer policy, persuade this Court to interfere with the impugned order. Though the learned State counsel contended that owing to closure of Durg R.E.S. Division and creation of Khairagarh Division the petitioner has been posted at Khairagarh, but from Khairagarh the petitioner has been displaced within a short span of 10 months. Thus, the order impugned can be termed as frequent transfer. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 11.03.2026, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to continue at his present place of posting at Khairagarh. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the competent authority from passing a fresh order of transfer in respect of the petitioner, if and when a genuine administrative exigency so arises, in accordance with law and the applicable transfer policy. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu