-1- 2026:CGHC:17082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3238 of 2026 1 - Manmohan Lal Mishra S/o Shri Balkrishna Mishra Aged About 61 Years Posted As Sub Divisional Officer, Raigarh Forest Division, Raigarh Chhattisgarh, R/o Chakradhar Nagar, Bangla Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Deputy Secretary Forest And Climate Change Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Aranya Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle, Ccf Office, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Raigarh Division, Divisional Forest Office, Kelo Vihar, Raigarh Chhattisgarh 6 - Divisional Forest Officer Mungeli Division, Divisional Forest Office, Mungeli Chhattisgarh … Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 15 /04/2026 Heard. 1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking following relief(s):- -2- i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the relevant records pertaining to the instant matter. ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the transfer order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of Justice. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court deems, fit in the facts and circumstances may also be granted in favor of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while posted as Officer on Special Duty in Raigarh Forest Division, has been transferred to Mungeli Forest Division as Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 30.03.2026. He contends that, from the date of transfer, only 1 year and 1 month of service remains before the petitioner attains the age of superannuation. It is further submitted that, as per Clause 3.12 of the State Government’s Transfer Policy, a government servant who is left with one year of service should ordinarily not be transferred, and if transfer is necessary, it should be made on the basis of the employee’s choice or option. In the present case, prior to issuance of the transfer order, the respondent-authority did not seek the petitioner’s option. Therefore, the impugned transfer order is arbitrary and in violation of Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and contends that Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy applies only to those government servants who have one year or less service remaining before superannuation. It is further submitted that, under the Transfer Policy, a committee has been constituted to consider grievances against transfer orders, and the petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he has submitted any representation before the said committee. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy. It is further submitted that, since the petitioner has not been relieved till date, some interim protection may be granted. -3- 5. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and taking into account the nature of the grievance that the petitioner has been transferred when only 1 year and 1 month of service remains before attaining the age of superannuation, in light of Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy—this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before the competent committee within a period of 10 days from today. In the event such representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in mind Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. Till decision is taken on the representation, status quo as regards the posting of the petitioner shall be maintained by the parties. This interim protection shall remain operative till compliance of the direction issued by this Court. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Jyoti