1 - Barkha Kasu W/o Akash Kasu Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:36072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6916 of 2025 1 - Barkha Kasu W/o Akash Kasu Aged About 44 Years Presently Posted As Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Bemetara, District Bemetara C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur C.G. 2 - Belarmin Beg Presently Posted As Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ---- Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
dated 08.10.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6445 of 2024. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is strictly in accordance with the Transfer Policy dated 05.06.2025. The petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and on the public interest. Vide order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner was suspended and her headquarter was fixed at Narayanpur, which cannot be considered as her posting at core scheduled area. The personal difficulties of the petitioner are to be considered by the authorities concerned, and further clause 1.5 of the policy dated 03.06.2015 provides that the posting of the female employees, disabled and the employees of more than 55 years of age, can be kept away from core scheduled area is as far as possible, and it is for the 4 department to consider the administrative exigency. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that she should be posted at a particular place. She has already made her representation on 27.06.2025 and it is for the authorities concerned to consider her representation. So far as the order dated 08.10.2024, passed in WPS No. 6445 of 2024 relied by the petitioner is concerned, it is not applicable to the present case, as the case of WPS No. 6445 of 2024 pertains to mid-term transfer and disturbance of the education of the children, whereas in the present case, it is not the mid-term transfer. The transfer of the petitioner is also with prior approval of the Hon’ble Minister of the concerned department of Chhattisgarh Government, therefore, there is no ground available to the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available in the petition. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to her transfer in the core scheduled area and as per her contention, she has already worked for sufficient time in the core scheduled area. Clause 1.5 and 1.6 of the policy dated 03.06.2015 provides for posting of the employees in the scheduled area, which reads as under:- “1.5 कति(cid:3)पय वि(cid:8)भागों में राज्य स्(cid:3)रीय पद के (cid:8)ल गैर अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔों के लिलए स्(cid:8)ीकृ (cid:3) हो सक(cid:3)े है। ऐसी ቝኌस्’ति(cid:3) में उस वि(cid:8)भाग में अति)कारी/कम*(cid:28)ारिरयों की पदस्’ापना अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔों में नहीं हो पाने से उन्हें य’ा समय होने (cid:8)ाली पदो्ቐति(cid:3) से (cid:8)ंति(cid:28)(cid:3) नहीं विकया जाएगा। मविहला अति)कारी/कम*(cid:28)ारी ए(cid:8)ं विनःश्ሹजन (cid:3)’ा 55 (cid:8)्ቧ* से अति)क आयु के जन्य अति)कारिरयों/कम*(cid:28)ारिरयों को य’ासंभ(cid:8) दुग*म अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में पदस्’ापना 5 से मु्ሹ रखा जाए, (cid:3)’ाविप मविहलाओं / विनःश्ሹजन ्ቛारा स्(cid:8)यं (cid:28)ाहे जाने पर उनकी पदस्’ापना (cid:8)ांछि;(cid:3) दुग*म अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में की जा(cid:8)ेगी। 1.6 अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में पदस्’ापना के समय ऐसे अति)कारिरयों/कम*(cid:28)ारिरयों को ्ቚा’विमक(cid:3)ा दी जाए जो पू(cid:8)* में अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔों में पदस्’ न न रहे हों या न्यून(cid:3)म अ(cid:8)ति) के लिलए पदस्’ रहे हों। यविद इस मापदंड के अनुसार पदस्’ापना के लिलए सं(cid:8)ग* में ति(cid:28)ቝኌन्ह(cid:3) अति)कारी/कम*(cid:28)ारी समान स्(cid:3)र के हों (cid:3)ो यह वि(cid:8)भाग पर विनभ*र होगा विक (cid:8)ह उनमें से विकसकी पदस्’ापना करे।” 6. Further, in the policy dated 03.06.2015, clause 2.1 provides for transfer at the core scheduled area, which reads as under:- “2.1 दुग*म अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में कम से कम दो (cid:8)्ቧ* अ’(cid:8)ा सामान्य अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में (cid:3)ीन (cid:8)्ቧ* (cid:3)क पदस्’ापना की जाए। अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में रिर्ሹ पदों की उपलब्)(cid:3)ा ए(cid:8)ं शासकीय से(cid:8)क ्ቛारा अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में की गई से(cid:8)ा अ(cid:8)ति) के अनुसार उसकी पदस्’ापना गैर अनुसूति(cid:28)(cid:3) ्ቌे्ቔ में करने पर वि(cid:8)(cid:28)ार विकया जाए।” 7. From perusal of the policy dated 03.06.2015, it transpires that it is not mandatory that the female employees, disabled and the employees of more than 55 years of age, cannot be posted in the core scheduled area, but it reveals that it is for the authorities concerned to make their posting as far as possible, for which the petitioner has already made a representation on 27.06.2025. The petitioner could not be benefited by the order dated 08.10.2024, passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6445 of 2024, as the said case was with respect to mid- term transfer, which was made on 24.09.2024, whereas in the present case, the transfer is made on 25.06.2025 and the education session of the children are yet to be started. The petitioner could not demonstrate any palpable infirmity or mala fide on the part of the authorities concerned, which makes her entitled for the reliefs claimed. The 6 ground raised by the petitioner that she has been transferred on erroneous ground and she would face family difficulties, would not be sufficient to quash her transfer order dated 25.06.2025. 8. It is a trite law that transfer/posting is an incidence of service, the Court should not interfere with the transfer/posting order, unless there is malice, infringement of statutory rules and regulations. The employees may be posted anywhere at the instance of the employer in public interest and administrative exigency. Further, it is for the government to post another person, if any vacancy arises on account of transfer/posting of an employee. [see Airport Authority of India v. Rajiv Ratan Pandey and others, 2009 (8) SCC 337 and Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others v. G. Ratnam and others, 2007 (8) SCC 212 and also Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Suppl. 2, SCC 659]. Further, from the documents annexed with the petition and the instructions submitted by the respondents/State, this Court do not find any scope of interference in this petition. 9.
Arguments
: Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 08/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is a Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Bemetara has been transferred to District Bijapur on administrative exigency, and prayed for the following reliefs:- VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.25 19:10:15 +0530 2 “(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records, pertaining to the issuance of the transfer order dated 25/06/2025. (ii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the transfer order dated 25/06/2025 (Annexure P-1) with respect to the petitioner. (iii) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to modify the transfer order and consider her for posting at any other office near Raipur. (iv) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to sympathetically consider and decide the representation dated 27/06/2025 and set aside/modify the transfer order. (v) Cost of the petition be allowed. (vi) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, initially the petitioner was appointed on 29.07.2009 on the post of Physiotherapist Grade-3 and was posted as Superintendent, Multi-disabled Home, Mana Camp, Raipur and she was transferred from Raipur to Jagdalpur vide order dated 24.07.2012. In the year 2019, the petitioner while she was posted at Balod, was suspended and her headquarter was fixed at district Narayanpur. She was again transferred vide order dated 30.09.2022 from Narayanpur to Bemetara and presently she has again been transferred from Bemetara to Bijapur. He would further submit that the transfer of the petitioner is against the circular dated 03.06.2015 issued by the State Government, in which it has been provided that the female employees, disabled and the employees of 3 more than 55 years of age may be kept away from posting at core scheduled area. The employees, who were not posted earlier in the scheduled area, may be preferably posted there in the scheduled/core scheduled area. District Bijapur is the core scheduled area. The petitioner had already served more than 03 years in core scheduled area and for more than 02 years at general scheduled area. He would also submit that the distance between Bemetara to Bijapur is more than 400 KMs. Her minor daughters are studying at Raipur and she has to take care of her 79 years old aged father, whose treatment is also going on at MMI Hospital Raipur, therefore, the impugned transfer order of the petitioner may be quashed. He would rely upon the order
Decision
In view of the above settled legal position and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge