The Collector is competent to transfer employees within a district subject to the Incharge Minister's approval under the Transfer Policy, regardless of whether the post is a divisional cadre post, and personal hardships do not justify judicial interference in lawful transfers.

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHANMORLE MORLE Date: 2026.04.20 18:26:38 +0530

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 470 of 2026 (Smt. Arti Tirkey vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is presently working as a Staff Nurse and, vide order dated 30.06.2025, she has been transferred from Community Health Center, Kunkuri to Primary Health Center, Sulesa, Block Bagicha, District Jashpur. He further submitted that the post of Staff Nurse is a divisional level post and the appointing authority of the appellant is the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. As per the applicable transfer policy, the Collector is competent to transfer only district-level Class-III and Class-IV employees. Since the appellant is a divisional level employee, the impugned transfer order issued by the Collector is without jurisdiction and contrary to the transfer policy. He also submitted that under the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Paramedical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘Rules of 2013’), the appointing authority for the post of Staff Nurse is the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services of the concerned division, and therefore, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellant had earlier preferred a writ petition being WPS No. 7781/2025 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2025 directing the appellant to submit a fresh representation before the High Power Transfer Committee, to be decided objectively and by a reasoned order within a stipulated period, and further directing that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant in the meantime. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a detailed representation on 21.07.2025 raising all relevant grounds, including that the transfer order was contrary to the transfer policy and that the appellant’s husband is a government employee posted in District Jashpur on the post of Assistant Grade-II. However, it is submitted that the High Power Transfer Committee, without properly considering the grounds raised, rejected the representation vide order dated 01.09.2025.

5. It is also contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that the appellant has personal difficulties, inasmuch as her minor daughter is studying in Nursery and her examinations are scheduled in February, 2026. Further, the appellant has given birth to a girl child on 22.10.2025, and therefore, the transfer at this stage causes grave hardship. He further submits that the recommendation dated 01.09.2025 was communicated to the appellant only through an order dated 09.09.2025, which was received by her on 07.01.2026 through ordinary post, causing considerable delay and prejudice.

6. It is further submitted that while rejecting the representation of the appellant, no valid or cogent reasons have been recorded, which is in v