1 / 3 2026:CGHC:2136 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 312 of 2026 • Ramesh Kumar Ghosle S/o Late Falit Ram Aged About 49 Years Working As Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) and Posted At Out Line Dispensary Parsiya, Block- Pathariya District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry And Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director At Office Of Animal Husbandry Development Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 3. Deputy Director Animal Husbandry Services Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, 4. Collector Mungeli District- Mungeli (C.G.) 5. Transfer Committee State Of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department And Member Secretary Senior Secretaries Atal Nagar, Raipur Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha,Dy. Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 14/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the respondent No. 5 arising out of reliving order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 arising out of transfer order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1, in the interest of justice. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner who is holding post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer and posted at Veterinary Hospital, Parsiya, Block Pathariya, District Mungeli, C.G. is transferred to Artificial Insemination Centre, Jashpur, C.G. He contended that petitioner is appointed as physically handicapped candidate and his suffering with 50% permanent disability (PPRP, Left Leg). According to the Circular issued by the State Government, the physically challenged employees are to be posted in their home district and in support of his contention he referred Circular dated 30.08.2010. He contended that earlier writ petition was filed, however, it was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a representation before the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy. Transfer Policy of the year 2025 came into effect from 05.06.2025, whereas transfer of petitioner along with other employees effected on 08.01.2025 and therefore clauses of the policy of the year 2025 would not be applicable and transfer of petitioner will governed by the policy of the year 2022 and in that Transfer Policy in Clause 2.8, there is specific mention that physically challenged employees are to be posted at feasible place for their conveyance. Petitioner has been transferred about 400 kms away from his home district and therefore transfer of petitioner be interdicted. The Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy has not consider the representation submitted by petitioner in objective manner and has dismissed in a mechanical manner. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2003 on the post of Attendant, Class-IV post. She contended that since 2003 petitioner was posted within the Bilaspur and Mungeli and earlier Mungeli was within Bilaspur district. Since 2015, petitioner is posted at Veterinary Hospital, Parsiya, block Pathariya, Dist. Mungeli which is his home district, as 3 / 3 submitted by counsel for petitioner and here also petitioner as completed about more than 7 years. She also submits that during period of service, petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer in the year 2018 which is a State cadre post and accordingly petitioner has been transferred out of the district. Referring to Circular relied upon by the counsel for petitioner, she submits that it normally mentioned that Class-IV & Class-III appointees whose name is at district cadre post are to be benefited under the said Circular and not the State cadre employees. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. So far as submission of learned counsel for petitioner referring to the Policy of the year 2022, Clause 2.8, is concerned, in that policy also it is clearly mentioned that as far as possible posting of physically challenged employee is to be made on suitable place of conveyance. No specific pleading is made that the place of posting is not convenient for transportation. Transfer of petitioner is at district place ie., Jashpur. Further, the Circular which is relied upon by the counsel for petitioner dated 30.08.2010 talks only to the district cadre class-III and IV employees, even though petitioner is class-III employee but he is holding State cadre post, therefore, said Circular will not apply. Petitioner is continuously posted in his home district since 2003 for more than 20 years. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed being sans merit. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE