1 CGHC010402652026 2026:CGHC:44042 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7472 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Khande S/o -Late Harishankar Khande Aged About 56 Years Posted As Deputy Collector District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector District Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Madhu Teta Posted As Deputy Collector District Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate with Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12.10.2026 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.10.12 17:21:38 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 29.09.2026 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner, while working as Deputy Collector at District Mahasamund, has been transferred to District Jashpur on administrative grounds. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has served at various places in the Scheduled Areas of the State for a considerable period and that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy dated 03.06.2015 issued by the General Administration Department. It is further submitted that the petitioner's wife is presently posted as a Headmaster at Government Middle School, Lawar, Block Masturi, and that the petitioner's request for consideration of his case in terms of the applicable transfer policy has not been favourably considered, in terms of clause 3.13 of the transfer policy which provides that as far as possible the wife and husband should be posted at the same place. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation dated 30.09.2026 before the competent authority seeking reconsideration of the impugned transfer order. Learned counsel confines his prayer to a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within a stipulated period. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission of the petitioner and submits that if the petitioner submits a representation before the Committee constituted under Clause 8 of the State Transfer Policy, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of representation. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing the committee to consider and decide the petitioner's representation. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the committee as provided under Clause 8 of the transfer policy within 10 days from today. In the event such a representation 4 is submitted within the aforesaid period, the said committee shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within 25 days from the date of receipt of the representation. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the committee shall consider the petitioner's representation independently in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib