1 CGHC010235182026 2026:CGHC:39311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4683 of 2026 Kannur Hanumant Rao S/o Kannur Laxminarayan Rao Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Ophthalmic Assistant Officer At Ophthalmic Unit District Hospital Maharani Hospital Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Directorate Health and Family Welfare Department Indravati Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. 4 - Chief Medical and Helath Officer, Jagdalpur District Bastar C.G. 5 - Sudeep Pramanik Ophthalmic Assistant Officer, Primary Health Center Chaparbhanpuri District Bastar C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao, Advocate For State/Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA For Respondent No.5 : None, despite service of notice ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.09 18:23:13 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 08/09/2026 1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby his services have been attached from the Ophthalmic Unit, District Hospital, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur to the Primary Health Centre, Chaparbhhanpuri, and the respondent No.5 has been posted in his place. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the Government instructions dated 04.06.2001 (Annexure P/3), whereby attachment of officers/employees from their original place of posting has been prohibited and, in cases where such attachment is found to have been made, directions have been issued for bringing an end to such attachment. It is further submitted that the subsequent notification dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Health Department also contains a specific stipulation against attachment and directs cancellation of such attachments. It is contended that the impugned order, though styled as an attachment/posting arrangement, has the effect of displacing the petitioner from his existing place of posting and is therefore not sustainable in view of the aforesaid Government instructions. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order is only an administrative arrangement made in view of the functional requirements of the Health Department and does not effect any change in the petitioner’s cadre, substantive post, pay or 3 seniority. It is contended that such deployment on account of administrative exigency cannot be treated as attachment. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to continue at a particular place of posting and has failed to establish violation of any statutory service rule. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Despite service of notice Respondent No.5 has chosen not to appear before this Court. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the documents placed on record, this Court finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The Government instructions dated 04.06.2001 specifically prohibit attachment of an officer/employee from his original place of posting, while the subsequent notification dated 12.03.2026 issued by the Health Department reiterates the prohibition against attachment and contemplates cancellation of such arrangements. The impugned order dated 12.06.2026, whereby the petitioner has been attached from his existing place of posting and another employee has been posted in his place, is thus not in conformity with the aforesaid instructions. Consequently, the impugned order, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P/1), insofar as it relates to the attachment of the petitioner from his existing place of posting, is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking a fresh decision in respect of the posting of the petitioner, if 4 so required, and from passing an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law and the applicable Government instructions/policy, after due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu