1 CGHC010259302026 2026:CGHC:38098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5197 of 2026 Jay Govind Gupta S/o Late Shri Swaminath Gupta Aged About 57 Years Working As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Raghunath Ram Working As Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District- Jashpur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Pandey, Advocate For Resp/State : Mr. Vivek Verma, GA For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 25/08/2026 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.08.25 18:04:30 +0530 2 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby he has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguja to Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District Jashpur, primarily on the ground of frequent transfer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguja, has been subjected to frequent transfers within a short span of time. He submits that vide order dated 18.06.2025, the petitioner was transferred from Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur to Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur and, pursuant thereto, he joined at the transferred place of posting. Thereafter, within a period of about three months, vide order dated 18.09.2025, the petitioner was again transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur, District Surajpur to Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguja, where he joined on 22.09.2025. He further submits that within a period of about nine months thereafter, by the impugned order dated 30.06.2026, the petitioner has again been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguja to Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District Jashpur. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order suffers from the vice of frequent transfer and is contrary to the State Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the transfer order has been issued in the exigencies of administration, and the alleged transfer of the petitioner are not the 3 transfer, some of the orders are attachment orders and does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the facts borne out from the record, it is evident that the petitioner has been transferred/shifted from one place to another thrice within a period of about one year. After his transfer from Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Ambikapur to Janpad Panchayat, Pratappur vide order dated 18.06.2025, he was again transferred to Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur vide order dated 18.09.2025, within a period of about three months. The petitioner joined at Sitapur on 22.09.2025 and, within about nine months thereafter, the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2026 has been issued transferring him to Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District Jashpur. 6. Though transfer is an incidence of service and the administrative authority ordinarily has the discretion to transfer an employee in the exigencies of administration, such discretion has to be exercised fairly and reasonably and in accordance with the applicable transfer policy. In the facts of the present case, the repeated transfers of the petitioner within such short intervals, particularly when he has been transferred again within about nine months of his joining at Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, cannot be said to be justified merely by referring to administrative exigency. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate any compelling circumstance warranting yet another 4 transfer of the petitioner within such a short period. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned order warrants interference. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the petitioner, whereby he has been transferred from Janpad Panchayat, Sitapur, District Surguja to Janpad Panchayat, Manora, District Jashpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul/Ashu