Jageshwar Ram Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

2 - Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

3 - Arun Kumar Sai, Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Division Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

4 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Shri Manoj Paranjpe and Shri Vivek Verma, Advocates
For State/Respondents No.1 & 2	: Shri Ajit Singh, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.4.	: Shri AnupMajumdar, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

10/03/2025

¶21

By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

¶23

10.2) That, the Hon'ble court be pleased to issue appropriate order quashing/set-aside the impugned order dated 01-01-2025 (Annexure P/1).

¶24

10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to continue the service of the petitioner at the same place.

¶25

10.4) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

¶26

The instant petition has been preferred against the deputation/transfer order dated 1.1.2025 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner is transferred from Water Resources, Hasdeo Basin Bilaspur to Office of the Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Raipur on deputation without consent of the petitioner. Even the period of deputation is not mentioned in the impugned order dated 1.1.2025.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed in violation of the transfer policy as well as the circular issued by the General Administrative Department of the State. The transfer policy framed by the State Government specifically mentions that an employee posted at the

¶28

3

¶29

same place for more than two years can be transferred, but, in the instant case, the period of posting of the petitioner at the present place is less than 1 year. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. No consent was obtained from the petitioner for sending him on deputation which is mandatory before sending an employee on deputation. There can be no deputation without the consent of the employee so deputed. An employee belonging to a cadre cannot be deputed or transferred outside his parent department and outside his cadre. He can be sent on deputation, but, that too with his consent. The transfer within the period of ten months is unjust and absolutely illegal and is in violation of the transfer policy of the State Government.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned order dated 1.1.2025 is passed purely to meet the administrative exigency and the petitioner holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place. It is a settled proposition of law that transfer is an incident of service. Hence, no government employee has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in administrative interest. Hence, the instant petition is without any substance and accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶31

I have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the material available with due care.

¶32

The transfer is an exigency of service and the petitioner being a government servant cannot escape from being transferred by the department in view of the requirement and administrative exigency arising from time to time. Having

¶33

4

¶34

considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and the contentions put-forth by learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court does not find any cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order. There is nothing to hold that the impugned order in respect of the petitioner is improper.

¶35

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed . The order passed by this Court on 3.1.2025 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order of transfer with regard to the petitioner stands vacated.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Gopal Singh

Jageshwar Ram Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jageshwar Ram Bhagat v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchuram Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harsh Sabharwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Tukaram Kunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Keshaw Prasad Lahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Amrita Bada Vs State of Chhattisgarh