Court Rules Transfer Policy Clause Misapplied, Affirms Administrative Decision on Officer's Transfer
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Uttam Prasad Paikra, a Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest), challenging the order of the learned Single Judge which quashed the State Government's decision to cancel his transfer. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, upheld the original transfer order dated June 30, 2025, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding his impending retirement and alleged procedural irregularities.
The case revolved around the State Government's decision to transfer Uttam Prasad Paikra from Janakpur to Manendragarh and the subsequent cancellation of this transfer based on a committee's recommendation. The committee had cited Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy, which protects employees with less than one year of service left from being transferred. However, it was later realized that the appellant had more than a year of service remaining, making the cancellation order unsustainable.
The court, in its judgment dated May 8, 2026, emphasized that transfer and posting are administrative decisions and can only be interfered with if vitiated by mala fide intent or statutory violations. The court found that the committee's recommendation and the resulting cancellation order were primarily based on an incorrect assumption about the appellant's service tenure.
The court also addressed the appellant's claims regarding procedural lapses in charge assumption by the respondent who was transferred to his post. It was noted that affidavits and departmental records confirmed the respondent's assumption of charge, contrary to the appellant's assertions.
Furthermore, the court dismissed contentions regarding alleged violations of Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular, which prohibits posting an employee in their home district. The court noted the State Government's clarification that the appellant's posting did not amount to such a violation following district reorganization.
The judgment underscores the principle that employees cannot claim a right to remain in a particular posting unless there is clear evidence of statutory violations or bad faith.
Bottom line:-
Transfer and posting are incidents of service, and employees cannot claim continuance at a particular place as a matter of right unless shown to be vitiated by mala fide or statutory violation.
Statutory provision(s): Clause 1.6 of the Transfer Policy, Clause 9.19 of the General Book Circular, Clause 5.18.2
The ruling reaffirms the administrative discretion in transfer matters, highlighting the limited scope of judicial intervention unless procedural malpractices are evident. The appeal's dismissal also nullifies any related claims made by intervenors, aligning with the court's focus on administrative propriety and factual correctness.
Uttam Prasad Paikra v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2895511
