Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Dr. Pushplata, W/o Dr. Ramesh Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2526 of 2026
Decided on : 04-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate

Government transfer policies, even if directory, constitute established norms that authorities cannot arbitrarily disregard. Any deviation from such policies, especially regarding employees in their final year of service, must be substantiated with valid, recorded justifications to avoid being deemed arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Transfer Policy - Government Resolution regarding transfer of employees nearing superannuation - Guidelines providing that, as far as possible, an employee in the last year of retirement should be posted at a place of convenience - Where such norms are laid down, authorities cannot disregard or flout them in an arbitrary manner. (Paras 13, 18, 19)

(B) Service Law - Transfer of government servant - Discretionary power - Directory nature of guidelines - Even where policy guidelines are directory, the authority must provide valid reasons or specific justification for any deviation from the prescribed norms - Failure to document valid reasons for deviation renders the transfer order unsustainable. (Paras 14, 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a medical officer nearing the end of her service, challenged an order of transfer to a remote location. The petitioner contended that the transfer was contrary to the established state policy which requires authorities to accommodate employees in their final year of service at a convenient location, particularly given her advanced age and chronic medical conditions. The respondents defended the transfer, citing the directory nature of the policy and alleging that the petitioner had not complied with the transfer order.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while the government transfer resolution is directory, it cannot be ignored arbitrarily. The respondents were unable to demonstrate why it was not possible to retain the petitioner at a convenient location. The court further held that in the absence of valid justifications for deviation from established policy, the order of transfer was unsustainable. Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner could not be held responsible for non-compliance when she had not been adequately accommodated or provided with a realistic opportunity to join.

Issues: Whether the transfer of a government servant during the final year of service to a distant location, in contravention of existing policy guidelines, is legally sustainable in the absence of valid justification.

Ratio Decidendi: When a government formulates policy norms to govern the transfer of its employees, such policies cannot be disregarded at the whims of executive authorities. Even if the policy is framed as directory, the authority must provide cogent and valid reasons for any deviation; failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned transfer order is quashed and set aside with directions to consider the petitioner for a suitable posting.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual timeline and prior litigation history of the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding transfer policy, medical conditions, and unauthorized absence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. requirement to adhere to transfer policies near superannuation notwithstanding their directory nature. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. administrative authorities cannot arbitrarily disregard policy guidelines in the absence of written justification. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court mandate to set aside improper transfer and ensure timely release of benefits. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure-6), by reason of which the petitioner has been posted as Medical Officer at Barhait, Sahibganj without considering the admitted fact that the petitioner is going to superannuate on 30.06.2026 and also on her medical grounds; and further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to regularize the services and to release forthwith the up to date arrears of salary of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Medical Officer and her first posting was at Primary Health Centre, Siwan w.e.f. 04.11.1990. Pursuant to an advertisement for filling up different posts at RIMS, she came to be appointed as a Tutor in Department of Physiology on 15.08.2008.

4. After coming of the RIMS Rules, 2014, the post of Tutor was classified as a tenure post as opposed to be of permanent nature as advertised then. The said issue was carried up to this Court in LPA No. 615 of 2017 and, in accordance of the order passed therein, Respondent No. 5 rejected the representations of the petitioner and other similarly situated Tutors vide order dated 01.12.2023.

5. Aggrieved thereof, certain similarly situated Tutors approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and their SLP came to be allowed. However, the petitioner was not extended the benefit thereof and was not permitted to join since she was not a party in the said SLP.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner independently challenged the order passed in LPA No. 615 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 12235 of 2024. The said matter was referred to Lok Adalat, wherein the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare agreed to accept the joining of the petitioner on the post of Medical Officer, subject to approval of the Finance Department.

7. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her joining before the Respondent No. 2 on 06.12.2023 and again on 13.08.2024; however, no posting was assigned to her. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(S) No. 5588 of 2024. During pendency of the said writ application, the respondents issued Memo dated 15.12.2025, whereby the period from 01.09.2008 to 06.12.2023, during which the petitioner had served as Tutor at RIMS, was regularized.

8. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.12.2025, the petitioner was given posting at Barhait, Sahibganj. In view thereof, the aforesaid writ application was disposed of on 05.01.2026, with liberty to the petitioner to ventilate her further grievances before the appropriate forum.

9. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation before Respondent No. 2 requesting for her posting within Ranchi, inter alia, on the ground that she is very old and suffering from auto-immune diseases. However, no decision has been taken thereon till date. Hence, the present writ application.

10. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Respondent has passed the impugned order erroneously as no employee can be transferred or posted outside the home district in the last year of retirement in view of the State Government’s own Resolution dated 25.10.1980 with regard to transfer policies.

It has been furthe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIDEEPAK ROSHAN, J.Dr. Pushplata, W/o Dr. Ramesh Prasad - PetitionerVersusThe State of Jharkhand – Respondent W.P.(S) No. 2526 of 2026Decided on : 04-05-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Dr. Pushplata, W/o Dr. Ramesh Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2526 of 2026
Decided on : 04-05-2026