1 - R.S. Bhadouriya S/o Shri R.P. Singh Aged About 51 Years Posted As v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change
Case Details
1 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.09.19 10:41:05 +0530 2025:CGHC:47960-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 695 of 2025 1 - R.S. Bhadouriya S/o Shri R.P. Singh Aged About 51 Years Posted As Assistant Grade-01, OfÏce Of The Divisional Forest OfÏcer, Forest Division Marwahi, Pendraroad, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi C.G. 3 - Chief Forest Conservator Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur C.G. 4 - Divisional Forest OfÏcer Forest Division Marwahi, District -Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi C.G. 5 - Divisional Forest OfÏcer Forest Division Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G. 2
Legal Reasoning
6 - Smt. Shail Gupta Assistant Grade-01, Forest Division Marwahi, Pendraroad, District- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant :Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate. For Respondent/State :Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.09.2025 1. 2. Heard Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition WPS No.10343/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner came to be dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned Writ Court. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was initially posted at Dharamjaigarh Forest Division on the post of Assistant Grade-I, due to his ill health he made request to the Department 3 for his transfer to any other convenient place and vide 01-01- 2025 (Annexure-P/3) he was assigned the special duty at Marwahi from Forest Division Pendraroad and thereafter, he relieved from Dharamjaigarh Forest Divsion on 03-01-2025 and joined there at Pendraroad Forest Division. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant to accommodate respondent No.6 the authorities have passed the order on 11-08-2025 cancelling the attachment of the petitioner and directed him to appear in his duties at Dharamjaigarh Forest Division and on 18-08-2025 he was relieved for Dharamjaigarh Forest Division. According to the learned counsel, the authorities have considered the posting of the petitioner as attachment, whereas, he was transferred on his own request to Forest Division Pendraroad and assigned duty on special duty at Marwahi, since it was not the attachment but a transfer and his salary was also drawn from Pendraroad Forest Division, therefore, the impugned order itself is erroneous and the same may be quashed. According to learned counsel, the petitioner is suffering from liver disease for which his treatment is continued at Bilaspur hospital, therefore, considering his ailment he may be permitted to remain there at Pendraroad Forest Division. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single 4
Decision
Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the order impugned and has observed as under:- “5. The petitioner has claimed that vide order dated 01- 01-2025 he was transferred from Dharamjaigarh Forest Division to Pendraroad Forest Division. From perusal of the document Annexure P/3 it transpires that he was assigned special duty at Marwahi under the Pendraroad Forest Division temporarily and the contents of the order reads as under:- वनमं(cid:4)डला(cid:7)धि(cid:9)का(cid:7)री(cid:12) (cid:9)रीमंजयगढ़ वनमं(cid:4)डला का(cid:17) प्ቔ कामं(cid:7)(cid:4)का 1687 " दि(cid:21)न(cid:7)(cid:4)का 31.12.2024 का(cid:17) मं(cid:7)ध्यमं से(cid:17) ቦኍ(cid:12) आरी.एसे. भ(cid:21)(cid:28)रिरीय(cid:7), सेहा(cid:7)यका ቇኔ(cid:17)ड 01 का(cid:17) स्व(cid:7)ቝኚय खरी(cid:7)ब रीहान(cid:17) का(cid:17) का(cid:7)रीण (cid:9)रीमंजयगढ़ वनमं(cid:4)डला से(cid:17) अन्य्ቔ ቝኋ(cid:7)न(cid:7)(cid:4)तरीण हा(cid:17)त) ቚኔ(cid:17)षि,त अन)से(cid:4)शा(cid:7) प्ቔ परी सेहा(cid:7)न)भ.षितप.व/काषिवचा(cid:7)रीकारीत(cid:17)हुएतत्का(cid:7)लाቚኔभ(cid:7)वसे(cid:17)षिवशा(cid:17),कात/्ቤ मंरीव(cid:7)हा(cid:12)वनमं(cid:4)डलाप(cid:17)ण्ቑኋ(cid:7)री6डमं7आग(cid:7)मं(cid:12)आ(cid:21)(cid:17)शापय/नतअቝኋ(cid:7)य(cid:12)रुप से(cid:17)ቐ.टी;लाग(cid:7)य(cid:12)ज(cid:7)त(cid:12)हा<।" 6. When the petitioner was assigned duties temporarily at Marwahi, Forest Division Pendraroad, it cannot be said that he was transferred, but it appears that he was attached to Forest Division Pendraroad which has been cancelled vide order dated 11-08-2025 under the 5 transfer policy dated 05-06-2025. Even if it is a transfer, the authorities have in the public interest and administrative exigency have right to transfer the employees as per their requirement. The petitioner cannot claim to be remain posted at a particular place and under the administrative exigency as well as under the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 he was sent back to his original place of posting, i.e., Forest Division Dharamjaigarh. 7. 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 6 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 does not find any scope of interference in this petition. 8. 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 orders is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Single Bench is erroneous and unsustainable in view of the facts and material available on record. It is contended that the finding of the Single Bench, treating the appellant’s posting at his present place as a mere attachment and not a regular transfer from Forest Division Dharamjaigarh, is unjustified, since the appellant has been drawing salary from the present place of posting against a sanctioned vacant post, where he was transferred on his own request. It is further submitted that the authorities have passed orders dated 11.08.2025 and 18.08.2025 only to accommodate respondent no. 6, who, despite having 7 been promoted, continues to work at the same ofÏce as Assistant Grade-I instead of being transferred. He further submits that the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the appellant is suffering from serious liver disease and was transferred on his own request for medical reasons. It is also argued that the cancellation of attachment orders w.e.f. 05.06.2025 under the new transfer policy cannot affect the appellant, as the order dated 01.01.2025 by which he was transferred to Forest Division Marwahi, Pendraroad nowhere records that his posting was by way of attachment. Hence, treating his service at Marwahi as attachment and transferring him on that account is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. He further submits that that vide order dated 01-01-2025, the writ petitioner was assigned duties on special duty at Marwahi, Forest Division Pendraroad temporarily which has been cancelled vide order dated 11-08-2025 and he was directed to join his duties at his original place of posting, i.e., Dharamjaigarh Forest Division. He would further submit that as per the transfer policy dated 05-06-2025 all the attachments 8 have been cancelled w.e.f. 05-06-2025 and in that view of the transfer policy the petitioner has to be sent back to his original place of posting, for which the impugned orders have been passed by the authorities. Since the order passed by the learned Single Judge on correct appreciation of facts and law, it does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that vide order dated 01.01.2025 the appellant was not transferred from Dharamjaigarh Forest Division to Pendraroad Forest Division in the strict sense, but was only assigned special duty at Marwahi, Forest Division Pendraroad, temporarily on the request of petitioner himself, as is evident from Annexure P/3. The subsequent order dated 11.08.2025 cancelling such temporary arrangement has been passed in the backdrop of the transfer policy dated 05.06.2025, whereby all attachments stood cancelled with effect from the said date. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 9 9. Even otherwise, it is well settled that transfer and posting is an incidence of service, and the competent authority is fully empowered to transfer its employees in administrative exigency or in public interest, unless vitiated by malice or in violation of any statutory rules, which has not been demonstrated in the present case. 10. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 11. The writ appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib