1 CGHC010396542026 2026:CGHC:43926 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7358 of 2026 1 - Ramratan Prashad Dubey S/o Ramnarayan Dubey Aged About 56 Years Deputy Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.10.2026 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.09.2026 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner, SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.10.09 18:45:32 +0530 2 who is working as a Dy. Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, has been transferred to Bastar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned transfer order dated 29.09.2026 has been passed in violation of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 and the guidelines governing posting and tenure in Scheduled/Difficult Areas. He would submit that the petitioner has already rendered approximately 12 years of service in Scheduled and other remote and difficult areas, including Manpur- Mohla, Ambagarh Chowki, Jashpur and Ambikapur, and has again been transferred to Bastar, a Scheduled Area, without due consideration of his previous service in such areas. He would further submit that the circular dated 03.06.2015 contemplates consideration of employees who have completed their prescribed tenure in Scheduled postings, and the petitioner's previous service in such areas has not been duly considered. He would also submit that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman who has rendered approximately 16 years of service in the Indian Armed Forces and is presently aged about 56 years, which are relevant circumstances requiring consideration before assigning him another posting in a remote Scheduled Area. He would further submit that the petitioner's wife is presently undergoing post- operative treatment following major knee surgery and requires continuous medical consultation, physiotherapy and assistance, and that her second knee surgery is expected to be undertaken around January 2027. He would submit that the proposed posting at Bastar would cause serious hardship to the petitioner in arranging the requisite medical care and assistance for his wife. He would also submit that no specific administrative exigency has been disclosed for 3 the petitioner's transfer and that, despite the petitioner having submitted a detailed representation bringing these relevant circumstances to the notice of the respondent authorities, the same has not been meaningfully considered. He would lastly submit that the impugned transfer order has been passed arbitrarily, without due application of mind and in disregard of the applicable transfer policies and relevant family and medical circumstances, and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is no restriction that, even if the petitioner had worked in the core Scheduled Area, he cannot be transferred again to the said area. So far as the grievance raised by the petitioner under Clause 3.13 of the Policy dated 05.06.2025 is concerned, the petitioner has already made his representation, and it is for the authorities concerned to decide the same in accordance with Clause 8 of the said Policy. He would also submit that the petitioner cannot claim to be posted at the same place, as he has been transferred in view of administrative exigency. He, therefore, submits that the petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of Clause 8 of the Policy dated 05.06.2025, it is evident that the respondent authorities have provided an in-house mechanism for consideration of the grievances of employees who have been transferred under the Policy dated 05.06.2025. The Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy reads as under: 4 “8. स्थानांतरण के वि रुद्ध अभ्या दनां स्थानांतरण से व्याथिथात शासेकेया से के द्वार अपनां स्थानांतरण के वि रुद्ध अभ्या दनां के ल स्थानांतरण नांवित के उल्लंघनां हो!नां पर हो उक्त उल्लंघनां हो!नां ल के वि#के के सेबंध में' स्पष्ट आधर* के सेथा स्थानांतरण आदशा जार हो!नां के वितथिथा से 15 विद से के भीतर प्रश्नांधनां स्थानांतरण आदशा के प्रवित सेविहोत शासेनां द्वार गवि0त रिरष्ठ सेवि3 * के सेविमेंवित के सेया!जाके ए सेवि3 , सेमेंन्या प्रशासेनां वि भीग के! प्रस्त6त विकेया जा सेके ग। सेविमेंवित द्वार ऐसे प्रकेरण* के इसे स्थानांतरण नांवित के प्रकेशा में' परक्षण केरनां के पश्3त अपनां अनां6शासे सेबंथिधत वि भीग के! प्रवि;त के जाएग।” 6. Since the petitioner has already raised his grievance by making a representation dated 30.09.2026, as per Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025 and the said representation of the petitioner is to be considered by the authorities concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition, at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner and pass a reasoned order within the period prescribed under Clause 8 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika