1 2026:CGHC:4756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6019 of 2021 Raj Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Harihar Prasad Pandey Aged About 54 Years Heavy Vehicle Driver, Forest Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle Bilapur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Bilaspur, Forest Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Res./State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 28/01/2026 1. The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has called in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 7.9.2021 (Annexure P/1) by which he has been 2 transferred from “Flying Squad, Bilaspur Forest Division” to Belgahna Zone, Bilaspur Forest Division”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Heavy Vehicle Driver and was posted at Bilaspur. He submits that the petitioner has been transferred from 'Bilaspur' to 'Belgahna' vide order dated 7.9.2021 without prior approval from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, which is violation of memo dated 08.12.2020, by which executive instruction/circular/communication issued by the respondent No. 2 to various Chief Conservator of forest. It indicates that without prior approval of respondent No. 2, no transfer should be made by the Chief Conservator of Forest. Thus, the impugned order is without any authority of law and is beyond jurisdiction. Apart from this, he submits that impugned order is passed during the ban period and also in contravention with the transfer policy of the State Government dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure P/6). He further submits that this Court vide order dated 27.10.2021, stayed the effect & operation of the impugned order dated 7.9.2021 and at the strength of the said stay order, the petitioner is still performing his duties at Bilaspur. Therefore, he lastly submits that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents not to act upon Annexure P/1 reserving liberty in their favour to pass a fresh order in case of any administrative exigency or eventuality so arises. 3. Per contra, opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the State/respondent submits that though after passing the impugned transfer order, it was sent for approval of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, respondent No. 2 herein. Even otherwise, the executive instruction issued by the respondent No. 2 is only with respect to affairs and functioning of the government agency and it would not 3 create any legal right in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner cannot be allowed to be posted on same place for a long time. Thus, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with rapt attention. 5. As per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, impugned order is passed by the incompetent authority against the executive instructions issued by respondent No. 2. The return indicates that after the impugned order, Annexure P/1 is passed and the same was sent for approval to respondent No. 2. 6. Be that as it may, at this stage this Court is not inclined to go into the intricacy of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the respondent No. 3 was competent enough to transfer the petitioner or not. In the background of the fact, that this Court on 27.10.2021 stayed the operation of the impugned order and it appears that at the strength of the same, the petitioner is still performing his duties at Bilaspur. Thus, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with an observation that the respondent shall not act upon the execution of the impugned order Annexure P/1 and are at liberty to issue a fresh orders of transfer of the petitioner in the event of any administrative exigency or eventuality is arises. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.02 19:24:30 +0530