Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10490
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J
R.S. Bhadouriya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WA No. 695 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate
Transfer in service is at the discretion of the employer, upheld unless proven malice or statutory infringement.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Service Transfer - The appellant, previously assigned special duty at Pendraroad, contested transfer back to original posting citing health reasons. The Single Judge emphasized transfer as an incident of service subject to administrative discretion. No malice or statutory violation was evident. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Transfer Policy - Court affirmed the authority's right to transfer employees per public interest under current policy; dismissed claims of unjust treatment. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, suffering from health issues, was transferred temporarily for special duties but later reassigned to original station per transfer policies after cancellation of attachments.
Findings of Court:
The Single Judge’s decision was upholding legal standards, indicating no grounds for interference.
Issues: Determination of transfer legitimacy and the court's jurisdiction to interfere under service law principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that transfer is within managerial control unless proven abusive; the questioned orders complied with the transfer policy.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearing of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts surrounding the appellant's posting status. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding the justification of transfers and attachments. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on the merits of the single judge's order. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. affirmation of lawful transfer practices by the court. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. conclusion of the appeal being dismissed. (Para 11) |
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.
Heard Shri Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri Sangharsh Pandey, learned Govt.
Advocate for the State.
2.
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 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 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 वनमंड(cid:4) ला का(cid:17) प्ቔ कामं(cid:7)का(cid:4) 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)यकाቇኔ(cid:17)ड 01 का(cid:17) स्व(cid:7)ቝኚयखरी(cid:7)बरीहान(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)त(cid:4) रीण हात(cid:17)) ቚኔषि(cid:17),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)वनमंड(cid:4) लापण्(cid:17)ቑኋ(cid:7)री6डमं7आग(cid:7)मं(cid:12)आ(cid:21)(cid:17)शापय/नतअቝኋ(cid:7)य(cid:12)रुप से(cid:17)ቐटी.;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
