1 - Arun Kumar Ajgale S/o Late Shri Ratiram Ajgale Aged About 52 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7511 of 2025 1 - Arun Kumar Ajgale S/o Late Shri Ratiram Ajgale Aged About 52 Years Occupation Assistant Grade-I At The Office Of Deputy Registrar, Co- Operative Societies Jashpur R/o- Rambhatha Thathari, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil- Jaijaipur, District Sakti (C.G.) Mo. No. 9827923842 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co-Operative Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Co-Operative Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
4 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Tahsil Complex First Floor, Infront Of District And Session Court Raigarh Road, Jashpur, Tahsil And District Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Panel Lawyer VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.24 19:02:27 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice R avindra Kumar Agrawal 22/07/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Grade-2, has been transferred from the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jashpur to the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Grade-2 and is posted at the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jashpur. On 12.06.2025, he made his application for transfer from Jashpur district to any other district at Sakti, Sarangarh, Janjgir-Champa or Raigarh on his own request. Instead of transferring him to the aforesaid districts, he has been transferred to Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur district. He would further submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Grade-2 and he is the district cadre employee, but he has been transferred to another district, by which his seniority may be affected. The transfer of the petitioner is in violation of clause 3.14 of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025. He would also submit that the petitioner has moved his representation on 09.07.2025 to the authorities concerned, but the same has not been considered till date. During pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting. Since, the transfer of the petitioner is against the transfer 3 policy dated 05.06.2025, he is challenging the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that from the document annexed with the petition, it transpires that the services of the petitioner are not of district cadre, but it was the state cadre. By the order dated 07.09.1999, the appointment of the petitioner was made by the Commissioner, Cooperative and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal including others on the post of Assistant Grade-3 in the whole of Madhya Pradesh State, as the then was. Even, the petitioner has moved his application on 12.06.2025, requesting his transfer to the other districts i.e. Sakti, Sarangarh, Janjgir-Champa and Raigarh, which itself shows that his post is not of district cadre. Since the petitioner has already joined at his transferred place in compliance of the transfer order dated 30.06.2025, the same has been complied with and cannot be revoked. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. From the document annexed with the petition (Annexure P/2) and his application for transfer (Annexure P/3), it transpires that the post of the petitioner is the district cadre post. The petitioner could not demonstrate from any rule or setup of the department that his post is district cadre and he cannot be transferred to another district. In the application made by the petitioner himself for his transfer, he himself given option to be transferred to other districts, therefore, this Court is 4 not impressed upon the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of the petitioner is the district cadre post leaving this issue open for its consideration in appropriate proceeding. Further, in compliance of the order dated 30.06.2025, as per the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has joined at his transferred place of posting. 6. In the matter of “U.P. Singh vs. Punjab National Bank” reported in 2023 INSC 1077, in para 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “10. A person aggrieved by the order of transfer cannot sit at home and decide on his own that the order is illegal or erroneous and he will not comply with the same. If the workman had any grievance, he could have availed of his remedy available against the same; otherwise, he was duty-bound to comply with the same. Failure to avail of any remedy also would mean that he had accepted the order and was duty-bound to comply with the same. At a later stage, he could 4 not take a plea that the order being erroneous, no consequence would follow for its non-compliance.” 7. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of “Tarun Kanungo vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others” order dated 15.05.2015 passed in WA No. 248/2015 has held in para 3 that: “The question for cancellation of an order not in existence does not arise. The only option available to the authorities was to issue any fresh orders. We may appropriately refer to two Bench decisions in 2000 (2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. The State of Bihar) and 2000 (3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam Siddique v. The State of Bihar) observing as follows: 5 "12. Now it is a settled law that once an order of transfer issued and acted upon, it is spent its force. Thereafter, no substantive part remains to be stayed or rescinded and any order to that effect is redundant.” 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.
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