Dismissed¶¶32

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – Transfer

Chhattisgarh HC5 Mar 2025WPS/510/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 510 of 2025; 2025:CGHC:11251; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; decision dated 06/03/2025; transfer of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon; Scheduled Area posting policy dated 03.06.2015; 20 years Scheduled Area service; transfer policy dated 12/08/2022 clause 8; alternative remedy of representation; administrative exigency; mass transfer of 13 employees; mala fide allegation rejected; interim stay of 20.1.2025 vacated; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Transfer is an exigency of service; having considered the grounds and contentions, the Court finds no cogent ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order and nothing to hold the transfer improper. ¶¶31

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPALSINGH Date: 2025.03.10 19:32:15 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:11251

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 510 of 2025

¶7

1 - Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar S/o Shri Madhukar Aged About 52 Years Working As Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Block- Mohla, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh-Chouki, C.G.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Livestock Development, Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, C.G.

¶11

2 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services, District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh-Chouki, C.G.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy Government Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

06/03/2025

¶18

1. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is working as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Block Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki (C.G.). He is challenging order of transfer dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P1) issued by the respondent No.1, whereby they have transferred service of the petitioner from Block Mohla, District Rajnandgaon to Veterinary Hospital, Pratappur District

¶19

¶20

Surajpur. According to him, no one is posted in his place. The policy issued by General Administration Department dated 03.06.2015 is applicable in the present case. As per the policy dated 03.06.2015, there is specific clause, regarding posting of an employee at Scheduled Area. If the concerned employee has completed 2 years of service at Core Scheduled Area and 3 years of service at Scheduled Area, then he would be entitled for posting out of Scheduled Area, but, in the present case, the petitioner has completed 20 years of service at Scheduled area. Now, again by the impugned order of transfer, respondent No.1 has transferred his service at Scheduled area. This action of respondent No.1 is illegal, mala fide , bad and against the policy issued by the State Government, Department of General Administration. By the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, the petitioner is shifted 400 Кms. away from the present place of posting whereas there is no compliant against him, no adverse order against him. Hence, the instant petition for quashing the transfer order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the respondent No.1.

¶21

2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order of transfer dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) so far as concerned to the petitioner, passed by the respondent No.-1.”

¶23

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the policy issued by the General Administration Department dated 03.06.2015 is applicable in the present case. As per the policy dated 03.06.2015, there is specific clause regarding posting of an employee at Scheduled Area. If the concerned employee has completed 2 years of service at Core Scheduled Area and 3

¶24

¶25

years of service at Scheduled Area, then he would be entitled for posting out of Scheduled Area, but, in the present case, the petitioner has completed 20 years of service at Scheduled Area. He is presently working at Scheduled Area. Now, again by the impugned order of transfer, he is shifted to Scheduled Area. This action of the respondent is bad, illegal, mala fide and against the policy issued by the State Government dated 03.06.2015. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. By the impugned order, service of the petitioner has been transferred from one Scheduled Area to another Scheduled Area. No one is posted in place of the petitioner after his transfer from present place of posting. After the transfer, the post will be vacant and no one fulfills his post by the impugned order. This action is against the public interest, therefore, the impugned order of transfer is liable to be quashed.

¶26

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the main ground urged by the petitioner in the instant petition is that the policy issued by the General Administration Department dated 03/06/2015 is applicable in the present case. As per the said policy, there is specific clause regarding posting of an employee at Scheduled area and if the concerned employee completes 2 years of service at core scheduled area and 3 years of service at Scheduled Area, then he would be entitled for posting out of the scheduled area, but, in the instant case, the petitioner has completed 20 years of service at scheduled area and he is presently working at scheduled area. Now, again by the impugned order, he has been posted at scheduled area. It is further submitted that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed being misconceived and misplaced. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring a representation before

¶27

¶28

the committee comprising of Senior Secretaries and Secretary, Department of General Administration constituted for redressal of the grievance pertaining to transfer, against the transfer order issued against the provisions contained in clause 8 of the transfer policy dated 12/08/2022 (Annexure R/1), but, the petitioner has not exhausted the said remedy of preferring a representation and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been made purely on administrative ground and after obtaining the permission from the coordination of the Chief Minister and on administrative ground. The employer has all rights to post or transfer his/her employee at any place as per the requirement of his/her services. It is submitted that the impugned transfer order is mass transfer of as many as 13 employees/officers and all the transfer orders have been termed as administrative exigency and the petitioner is not one, who has been picked and chosen. The ground taken by the petitioner is not decisive for cancellation of his transfer order. It is further submitted that the substantive post of the petitioner is the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon which is a transferable post and the said post is a State Cadre post. It is well known that the change of place during the service is an incident of service and every employee under the government establishment is obligated to serve the establishment in accordance with the need of the administration. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim that he be allowed to work at the present place of posting and deny to work at the transferred place of posting. It is further submitted that needless to say that the transfer is an exigency of service and the employer always enjoys a prerogative to transfer his/her employee from one place to another on various grounds and no one can claim, as a matter of right to be posted in a particular choice of place

¶29

¶30

forever. It is submitted that the transfer order can only be challenged on the ground that the same has not been passed under any circular/ policy framed for this purpose, the same has been passed with mala fide intention and the same has been passed by incompetent authority. The petitioner has utterly and miserably failed to make out any of ground mentioned hereinabove, whereas the impugned transfer order dated 08/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) has been issued strictly in accordance with the transfer policy, on administrative exigency. The petitioner has impugned the transfer order (Annexure P/1) on the basis of vague grounds which are not tenable under the writ jurisdiction. Hence, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

5. 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 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 transfer order of the petitioner. There is nothing to hold the transfer of the petitioner to be improper.

¶32

6. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed . The order passed by this Court on 20.1.2025 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8.1.2025 with regard to the petitioner stands vacated.

¶33

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad )

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Gopal Singh

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chandrashekhar Ambulkar 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

Mahesh Ram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nanaji Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Salma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Singh Thakur Vs Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority

Abhishek Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh