High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed against a departmental transfer order. The Bench held that transfer is an incident of service and no officer can insist on a particular posting indefinitely, finding the order legal.
The present writ appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 356 of 2023
Dr. Dilip Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Sadanand Yadav, Aged About 62 Years Deputy Director, Unani, Directorate of Ayush Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. : For Respondents/State Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
04.09.2023
Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
2
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5585 of 2023 ( Dr. Dilip Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that :-
(ii) Vide transfer order dated 23.09.2022, the appellant/petitioner has been transferred from the post of Assistant Director, Directorate Ayush Raipur (C.G.) to Primary Health Centre Aara, District Balrampur (C.G.) on administrative ground and respondent No. 3 has been posted as Assistant Director in place of appellant/petitioner at his own cost.
(iii) The transfer order dated 23.09.2022 is totally contrary to the policy dated 04.08.2011 as well as the transfer policy dated 12.08.2022. That as per the policy dated 04.08.2011, the charge of Senior most post is to be given only to the Senior most officers in the Department and the same has been followed in the transfer policy at Clause No. 2.9.
(iv) Even the policy of the State Government dated 03.06.2015 has also not been complied with. That as per the policy dated 03.06.2015, the employees more than 55 years of age are not to be transfer in schedule area and in the present case, the appellant/petitioner is
3
aged about 61 years of age.
(v) The appellant/petitioner against the transfer order, preferred a writ petition, being WPS No. 6298 of 2022, whereby this Court vide order dated 11.10.2022 disposed off the writ petition directing the appellant/petitioner to submit the representation before the Committee within a period of two weeks and in turn the Committee shall consider and decide the same within further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation. For a period of eight weeks or decision of representation whichever is earlier transfer order dated 23.09.2022 so far as relates to the appellant/petitioner shall not given affect too.
(vi) Thereafter, appellant/petitioner approached the High Power Committee (for short, ‘Committee’), the Committee vide recommendation dated 02.06.2023 rejected the representation of the appellant/petitioner.
(vii) The Committee has not considered the grievance of the appellant/petitioner in accordance with the transfer policy as well as the policy dated 04.08.2011 and the policy dated 03.06.2015, whereby the employee/officers aged about 55 years are not to be posted at schedule areas. The appellant/petitioner is Senior most in the Department, accordingly replacing the appellant/petitioner by Junior Officer is violation of the transfer policy as well as the policy dated 04.08.2011. The Committee has not been constituted as per the transfer policy as only two members are present in the Committee. In the light to the recommendation of Committee, the respondent No. 1 issued the order dated 21.07.2023, rejected the
4
representation of the appellant/petitioner against the transfer order dated 23.09.2022 and vide order dated 28.07.2023 ex-parte relieved the appellant/petitioner. Till date, the appellant/petitioner is discharing his duties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has committed grave illegality while dismissing the writ petition, as such, the present writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.
7. The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record has rightly dismissed the writ petition observing as follows :
“2. The facts of the case are that petitioner has earlier filed WPS No. 6298 of 2022 challenging his transfer dated 23.09.2022. This Court vide order dated 11.10.2022 has directed the petitioner to make a representation and also directed that for a period of 8 weeks from the date of order or decision of representation, whichever is earlier, the transfer order dated 23.09.2022 was stayed. The petitioner submitted representation. In pursuance of order passed by this Court the respondents have decided his representation on 21.07.2023 and the protection order was effective till the decision was taken. Thus, petitioner has remained at present place of posting for about 10 months and now he has been relieved on 28.07.2023. The petitioner has nowhere mentioned that since long he
5
remained posted at Raipur but when this Court put a specific query with learned Counsel for the petitioner then only he informed that he is posted since 2016, thus, he remained at Raipur for more than 7 years.
3. Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering this fact that the no Government Servant insist to remain posted in particular place for entire service period. Considering well settled position of law that transfer is incident of service I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 21.07.2023 and transfer order 23.09.2022 which are well within the settled parameters of transfer and posting of a Government Servant as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The writ petition sans merits, dismissed.”
8. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we are of the opinion that no Government Servant insist to remain posted in particular place for entire service period and it is well settled position of law that transfer is incident of service. The order dated 21.07.2023 and transfer order dated 23.09.2022 are well within the settled parameters of transfer. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity warranting interference with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing the writ appeal against the transfer order and dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge.
Whether the transfer of a senior officer violates the established policy regarding postings of officers aged above 55 years.
Whether the failure to properly constitute the High Power Committee vitiates the transfer order.
Dr. Dilip Kumar Yadav
State of Chhattisgarh
Ramesh Sinha
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
