1 2026:CGHC:11640 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11547 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Mahetruram Chandrawanshi Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Sub- Divisional Antagarh Forest East Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Forest And Climate Diversion Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer, East Bhanupratappur Forest Division, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 3 - Mithun Chand Dahire S/o Late Sukhram Dahire Aged About 56 Years Working As Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Antagarh, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker C.G. 4 - The Transfer Examination Committee, Comprising By Senior Secretaries, Through The Chairman And Additional Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Home And Jail Department, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondent(s) AND WPS No. 98 of 2026 1 - Vijay Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Mahetruram Chandrawanshi Aged About 39 Years Presently Working As Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Sub- Divisional Antagarh Forest East Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Under Secretary, Forest And Climate Diversion Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Divisional Forest Officer East Bhanupratappur Forest Division, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - Mithun Chand Dahire S/o Late Sukhram Dahire Aged About 56 Years Working As Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Antagarh, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 4 - The Transfer Examination Committee Comprising By Senior Secretaries, Through The Chairman And Additional Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Home And Jail Department, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Pragya Vaishnav, Advocate For Respondents/State No.1, 2 & 4 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy.G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate with (In WPS No.11547 of 2025) Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate (In WPS No.98 of 2026) Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/03/2026 1. Petitioner has filed Writ Petition bearing WPS No.11547 of 2025 seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Petitioner has filed Writ Petition bearing WPS No.98 of 2026 seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case 3 including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had initially filed a writ petition, being WPS No. 11547 of 2025, challenging the recommendation dated 11.09.2025 of the Committee constituted under the Transfer Policy, whereby representation submitted by private respondent No. 3, who was transferred in place of petitioner, has been recommended to be allowed. Subsequently, pursuant to the said recommendation of the Committee, order dated 26.12.2025 was passed cancelling the transfer order dated 31.07.2025, which is subject matter of challenge in the WPS No.98 of 2026. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who was earlier posted as In-charge Officer, Narangi Region, East Bhanupratappur is transferred to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Antagarh, Forest Division East Bhanupratappur vide order dated 31.07.2025. Pursuant to order of transfer, petitioner was relieved from earlier place of posting on 04.08.2025 and joined transfer place of posting on same date. Copy of reliving and joining letter is filed as Annexure P-4. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that subsequently it revealed that respondent No.3 has filed writ petition before this Court challenging his order of transfer in WPS No.9167 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.08.2025 probably on the first date of hearing permitting petitioner to submit representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy. The writ petition was disposed of without issuance of notice to petitioner herein, who was respondent No.3 therein. Respondent No.3 submitted representation before the Committee and the Committee considering the grounds as 4 raised by respondent No.3 pressing upon Clause 3.10 of transfer policy, has recommended for accepting the representation of petitioner in WPS No. 9167 of 2025 and accordingly pursuant to the recommendation made by the Committee, State Government has passed the impugned order (Annexure P-1). He submits that order Annexure P-1 is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice more so when petitioner has already joined his transferred place. He also contended that when once the order of transfer is executed and employee has joined the transferred place, then order of transfer is not to be cancelled. He also contended that Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that in the matter of transfer, Court should not interfere when plea of transfer is of violation of transfer policy. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 and also the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Tarun Kanungao Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, in W.A. No.248 of 2015, decided on 15.05.2015. He submits that in the aforementioned facts of the case, impugned order Anexure P-1 be set- aside. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that in the transfer policy, State Government considering that there may be occasion to consider the grievance of employees transferred, has constituted a Committee to consider the grievance of employees on their transfer. Respondent No.3 submitted representation raising a grievance that there is violation of Clause 3.10 of transfer policy stating that respondent No.3 5 has not completed two years of service on place of his posting, accordingly, the Committee after considering the grounds raised has recommended for allowing representation submitted by respondent No.3. State Government upon considering the recommendation, has cancelled the order of transfer of petitioner as also respondent No.3 and posted them in their earlier place of posting, therefore, there is no error in the decision making process. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that respondent No.3 has challenged his transfer on the grounds available to him under the transfer policy initially before the High Court by way of filing writ petition and pursuant to order passed in writ petition, representation was submitted before the Committee constituted under transfer policy, which is a three member Committee. The Committee convinced with the grounds raised by respondent No.3, had recommended for cancellation of order of transfer and accordingly, the impugned order is passed. He further submits that the decision, which is relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Grievance of petitioner is that petitioner pursuant to the order of transfer issued by the State Government was relieved on 04.08.2025 and has joined the transferred place of posting on the same date. Perusal of the documents enclosed along with petition would show that writ petition filed by respondent No.3 came up for hearing on 06.08.2025 i.e. after joining of petitioner at transferred place. Writ 6 petition was disposed of considering that petitioner therein was having a remedy of submitting representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy, directed petitioner to move fresh representation. It appears that pursuant to the order of High Court, respondent No.3 submitted representation before the Committee and the Committee vide Annexure P-6 dated 11.09.2025 made recommendation for allowing representation submitted by respondent No.3. State Government considering the recommendation of the Committee, passed the impugned order. 9. It is not in dispute that State Government may pass order correcting or amending any order passed earlier but then it is for the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to person/employee, if for any reason he/she is going to be affected by the order to be passed by the State Government based on the representation or recommendation made by the Committee. From the order Annexure P-1, it is not reflecting that before accepting the recommendation made by the Committee constituted under transfer policy, respondent No.1 has issued notice/letter to petitioner giving an opportunity of hearing as to why his order of transfer be not cancelled, more so when petitioner had acted upon the order of transfer. In absence of such proceeding adopted by respondent No.1, order Annexure P-1 dated 26.12.2025 in the opinion of this Court is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, it is not sustainable on that ground only. 10. Accordingly, writ petition bearing WPS No.98 of 2026 is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed/set-aside. 7 11. As this Court is not considering merits of the case of either of the parties and has only quashed the impugned order (Annexure P-1) on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, liberty is reserved with respondent No.1 to consider the recommendation made by the Committee constituted under transfer policy afresh after giving notice to petitioner and an opportunity of hearing and thereafter to pass order afresh. 12. Accordingly, WPS No.98 of 2026 is allowed in above terms. 13. In view of decision in WPS No. 98 of 2026, WPS No.11547 of 2025 stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram