The court upheld the principle that government employees do not have an absolute right to remain at a specific posting, allowing for necessary administrative transfers.

Order :

1. Grievance of the petitioner stems from an impugned order dated 02.08.2022 (Annex.3), vide which, the petitioner was transferred from Gram Panchayat Rathi Kheda to Gram Panchayat Gudiya.

2. During the pendency of writ proceedings, a co-ordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 18.08.2022 staying the implementation of the impugned order. Same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:

“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 30.09.2021, he was posted at Gram Panchayat Rathi Kheda, Panchayat Samiti Tibbi where he joined and was accorded leave by Annex.2 for the period from 18.07.2022 to 01.08.2022, however, when the petitioner joined back on 02.08.2022, by Annex.3 he was allotted Gram Panchayat Gudiya by the Vikas Adhikari, which order is without jurisdiction as the same amounts to transferring the petitioner from Gram Panchayat, Rathikheda to Gram Panchayat, Gudiya.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice.

Issue notice of the stay application also.

In the meanwhile and till further orders, effect & operation of the order dated 02.08.2022 (Annex.3), shall remain stayed. Further, the petitioner would be permitted to join back at Gram Panchayat, Rathi Kheda.”

3. Aforesaid stay order continues to subsist in favor of the petitioner till date.

4. Transfers are a standard and integral aspect of government employment conditions. Employees do not possess an inherent right to demand continuation of their service at a specific location.

5. This Court ordinarily refrains from intervening in transfer matters, acknowledging administrative needs for employees to fulfill their duties at assigned locations.

6. In the instant case, given the duration of the interim protection granted by this court, its utility appears to have waned over time.

7. It transpires that, prior to granting the interim order to the petitioner, he had already served there for more than 2 years, and after the granting of the interim order, he has served there for more than 3 additional years. Be that as it may, the interim order is made absolute, but with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders in future in accordance with law, if necessary due to administrative exigency.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that passing of the fresh order would require a prior sanction from the competent authority in view of the ban imposed on transfers by the Government vide Chief Secretary's order dated 04.01.2023, which was subsequently clarified vide an administrative circular/order dated 03.01.2024.

8. In the premise, in order to obviate any procedural or administrative hurdle, it is made clear that since the liberty has been granted by way of issuance of writ of this Court, in the nature of mandamus, thus fresh decision, if warranted, qua the petitioner shall be construed to be in continuation of his earlier transfer order impugned herein. No further prior sanction would be required in terms of the order dated 04.01.2023 ibid.

9. However, in the parting, it is made clear that granting liberty to pass fresh order is not to be construed as a direction of this Court to necessarily do the same even if there is no such requirement otherwise.

10. Disposed of as above.

11. All pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.