2025:CGHC:59734 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13709 of 2025 • Tilak Nagesh S/o Banshi Ram Nagesh Aged About 48 Years R/o H. No. 212, Newta, Bafna, District Kondagaon C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Sahkarita (Co-

Operative), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G.

2. Director Of Committee Of Senior Secretary And Secretary Of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G.

3. Collector, Distt. Narayanpur C.G.

4. Assistant Commissioner, Co-Operative, Distt. Narayanpur C.G.

5. Assistant Commissioner, Co-Operative, Distt. Bijapur C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Pathak Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badagaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Order on Board

09/12/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (S) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 30-6-2925 (Annexure P/2)

passed by the respondent No.1 by which he has been transferred from Bijapur and also the order dated 9-9-2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the committee constituted by the State for transfer has rejected the representation of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has some personal difficulty as his old aged mother is taking treatment at Dhamtari, therefore, it is difficult for her to reach there for her treatment, as such he would submit that his case may be considered. He would further submit that the transfer order is contrary to the transfer policy and would pray for quashing of the impugned orders.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative exigency and petitioner has already been working there since 2008 and seventeen years have already lapsed and considering all the aspects of the matter, the respondent authority has rightly passed the transfer order which does not call for any interference by this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

5. From the record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned in the petition that since when he has been posted at the present place of posting and on the query put to him, it has been informed that he has been posted there since 2008, as such he has already remained posted there for 17 years. Thus, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has been posted there for 17 years which is a longer period permissible for posting of a particular Government servant. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that no Government servant can insist to remain posted at a particular place forever.

6. Considering the well settled position of law, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this writ petitioner being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

RAVVA SATYANARAYA NA (Narendra Kumar Vyas)

RAJU JUDGE Digitally signed by RAVVA

SATYANARAYANA

RAJU

Date: 2025.12.10

Raju