Transfers of employees nearing retirement must be justified by administrative exigency; otherwise, they are deemed arbitrary and against public policy.

Order :

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ajit Singh, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article226 of the Constitution of India who was working as Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) and has been transferred to Sub Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering, Ground Water Recharge Sub-Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.). By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned transfer order dated 01/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.1 qua the Petitioner herein and/or,

b) Pass any other order that this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in the respondents/Department and he has only 04 months to retire. He specifically submits that petitioner is going to retire on 31.05.2025 and no administrative exigency would be served. Therefore, his transfer order may be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of petition submitting that impugned order is well merited.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

6. This is a case where petitioner who is working as Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Division Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in the respondents/Department since 19.09.1989. On close scrutiny, it appears that petitioner is an old man and any administrative exigency would not be served if the petitioner is transferred for 04 months at such a distant place, where petitioner would not be able to coordinate for preparation of his pension related papers.

7. It is also true that Clause 22 of the Transfer Policy stipulates that those officer/employees who are to be superannuated within one year usually, would not be subjected to transfer in normal course, meaning thereby under normal circumstances or usual course, they may retire from the place where they are working if they have one year to retire. In the present case, almost four months are left for petitioner to retire. What was the dire administrative need which compelled the respondents/State to transfer an employee when four months are left for petitioner to retire. Such an attempt rendered the case of respondents doubtful. If petitioner was not performing the duties properly then other options were available including some stringent measures but if at the fag end of his tenure, employee is being sent on transfer then it is difficult for him to collect the relevant papers and make preparation of Pension Payment Orders. Besides that, at the fag end of his career, he has to take care of his retirement, coupled with the other family issues to resolve. As a model employer, it is the duty of the State to look into the said exigencies.

8. It seems that no public purpose would be served, if petitioner is posted at different place for four months because that time would be consumed by him for getting acclimatized with the new surroundings and would lose interest in performance of public duties effectively. On this count alone, it appears that attempt of respondents is contrary to principle of public policy.

9. It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. The said issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, in which, it has been held as follows :-

“5. It is no doubt true that if the power of transfer is abused, the exercise of the power is vitiated. But it is one thing to say tha