2026:CGHC:2695 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 482 of 2026

1 - Kamal Narayan Tiwari S/o Baldau Prasad Tiwari Aged About 49 Years R/o Near House Of Ex-Sarpanch Jwala Deshmukh, Kolihapuri, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

---Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Collector Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

4 - Sandeep Kumar Chandrakar Rural Health Coordinator, Sub-Health Centre, Bhansuli (R) Primary Health Centre, Gadadih, Block- Patan, Distt.-

Durg (C.G.)

5 - Transfer Committee Under The Policy Regulating Transfers Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondent(s)

(The cause title is taken from CIS)

For Petitioner : Mr. N. Raha Roy, Advocate BALRAM For Respondents : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy.G.A.

PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu DEWANGAN

Order On Board

16/01/2026

1. The petitioner has filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby representation made by the petitioner qua his transfer has been rejected by the respondent No.5 without assigning any reasons thereof in a most mechanical manner.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to consider the transfer of the petitioner back to his earlier place of posting as Rural Health Organizer (RHO) at the office of the respondent No.3 i.e. District Malaria Officer, District – Durg (C.G.).

10.3 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and command the respondents for releasing the salary of the petitioner for July, 2026 to October 2026 with appropriate interest as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner aggrieved with the order of transfer, has submitted representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy raising grounds, however, while deciding the representation, the Committee has not considered the grounds raised by petitioner in an objective manner. He also submits that wife of petitioner is also a government servant and posted as Teachers (LB) in District – Durg. However, by the impugned transfer, petitioner has been transferred from District Maleria Office, Durg to Sub-Health Center, Bhansuli (R), Primary Health Center, Gadadih, Block – Patan in contravention of the transfer policy.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner has not specifically pleaded that as to when he was posted at the present place of posting and since when he was being working. She however, contended that Clause 3.13 which is part of the transfer policy can not be claimed as matter of right. The policy is formulated by the State Government for its own convenience.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Perusal of transfer order Annexure P-5 dated 30.06.2025 would show that along with petitioner 32 other similarly situated employees have also been transferred on administrative exigency. Petitioner is holding a transferable post, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at a particular place. Transfer of petitioner cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. Petitioner is holding transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service. Petitioner has not specifically stated as to when he was posted at the present place of posting and since when he was being working.

6. Further submission of counsel for petitioner that the according to Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy husband and wife, who are in Government service, are to be posted at one place, is also not sustainable because Clause 3.13 talks of if the wife/husband of