Dismissed¶35

Keshaw Prasad Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2025WPS/626/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judicial review of government transfer; Executive Engineer, PWD Chhattisgarh transferred within 48 days; alleged violation of transfer policy dated 12.08.2022 (one-year station tenure) and circular dated 03.06.2015 (Scheduled Areas, three-year tenure); alleged administrative malice/mala fide transfer to accommodate Respondent No. 3; frequent transfers; transfer held to be exigency of service; no interference; writ petition dismissed; interim stay dated 23.1.2025 vacated.

What did the court decide?

Transfer is an exigency of service and a government servant cannot escape transfer by the department in view of requirements and administrative exigencies arising from time to time ¶34

Keshaw Prasad Lahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.25 19:28:56 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:11907

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 626 of 2025

¶7

1 - Keshaw Prasad Lahare S/o Shri R.R. Lahare Aged About 52 Years Working As Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, R/o G-Type Quarter, Rest House Campus, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Deputy Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Lalit Kumar Bhoi Working As Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Government Advocate For Caveator/Respondent No.3 : Shri Amrito Das and Shri Arham Siddiqui, Advocates

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

10/03/2025

¶19

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

¶20

“i. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure

¶21

P/1) with respect to the transfer of the petitioner passed by the

¶22

¶23

respondent no. 2 and the petitioner may be allowed to continue as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Surajpur, District Surajpur.

¶24

ii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is substantively holding the post of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. The petitioner was initially appointed on 02.08.2008 as Assistant Engineer in the department and was subsequently promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He became eligible for promotion in 2016. Considering his seniority, he was transferred to the position of In-Charge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Champa by order dated 17.05.2021. The petitioner was transferred again by order dated 28.09.2022 from the position of Executive Engineer, Division Champa to the National Highway Division, Sukma. However, this order was modified by order dated 30.09.2022 transferring the petitioner to the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Zone. Subsequently, the State Government issued another transfer order within 8 months transferring the petitioner as In-Charge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Champa. The petitioner joined the transferred place and sincerely discharged his duties. Meanwhile, the Departmental Promotion Committee convened a meeting to consider eligible Assistant Engineers for promotion, including the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner was promoted on 14.10.2024. After promotion, the services of the petitioner has been transferred as Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Surajpur, District Surajpur vide order dated 30/11/2024. The petitioner was relieved from his previous posting on 06.12.2024 and

¶26

¶27

immediately joined his new posting in Surajpur on the same day. However, on 17.01.2025, the respondents issued the impugned transfer order transferring the petitioner from Division Surajpur to the office of the Chief Engineer, Bilaspur within just 48 days after joining at Surajpur. The petitioner has already joined the new posting and is discharging his duties. The impugned transfer order appears to have been passed to accommodate Respondent No. 03. This transfer order violates the circular dated 03.06.2015 and the transfer policy dated 12.08.2022. The State Government issued a transfer policy on 12.08.2022 outlining the conditions under which government/public servants may be transferred. The policy, approved by the Council of Ministers, states that only those government servants who were posted on or before 15.08.2021 and have completed at least one year of service at their current posting are eligible for transfer. Additionally, the State Government issued a policy for transfers and postings in Scheduled Areas, published in the circular dated 03.06.2015. This policy specifies that public servants posted in Scheduled Areas must serve at least three years before being transferred, unless a complaint is lodged against them. In the present case, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat by transferring him within just 48 days to accommodate Respondent No. 03. Reliable sources indicate that Respondent No. 03 place of resident is in Kunkuri, District Jashpur, and sought a posting in Jashpur, Patthalgaon or Surajpur. Respondent No. 03 succeeded in achieving this goal by securing the petitioner's transfer. Therefore, the impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed.

¶28

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been subjected to five transfers within a span of four and a half years, the most recent being within 48 days of his last posting/transfer. Such frequent transfers

¶29

¶30

disrupt the petitioner's ability to perform his duties effectively and reflect administrative malice rather than genuine administrative necessity. The impugned transfer order dated 17.01.2025 violates the transfer policy, which mandates that a government servant must complete at least one year of service at a station before being transferred. The petitioner was transferred within 48 days of joining his current post, making the order arbitrary and non-compliant with the policy. The impugned transfer order has been passed without the application of mind, as the respondents authorities ought to have considered the fact that an employee should not be subjected to harassment through frequent transfers. As per the circular dated 03.06.2015 regarding postings/transfers in Scheduled Areas, a public servant is to be retained for a minimum period of three years and if he employee wants to remain posted there then he should be allowed to work unless there is a valid complaint against them. The petitioner has been made a scapegoat by being transferred within just 48 days and being replaced by Respondent No. 03.

¶31

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.3 jointly submit that on a close scrutiny of the documents filed along with the writ petition it is amply clear that the petitioner has always obtained postings of interest in his service with the respondent department and thus he was transferred on various places. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State that the post of the Executive Engineer in the respondent Public Works Department is a disbursing post that has various financial powers and responsibilities and transactions of huge amount are sanctioned through the seal and sign of the Executive Engineer of the division. Thus, the administration being well aware of the integrity of the petitioner posted him in the office of the Chief Engineer,

¶32

¶33

Bilaspur, where technical duties would be taken from the petitioner and thus the transfer is purely in administrative interest as well as public interest. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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.

¶35

6. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed . The order passed by this Court on 23.1.2025 staying the effect and operation of the impugned order of transfer with regard to the petitioner stands vacated.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶38

Gopal Singh

Keshaw Prasad Lahare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshaw Prasad Lahare 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

Jageshwar Ram Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmendra Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Amrita Bada Vs State of Chhattisgarh