Disposed¶36

Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026WPS/18/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur; WPS No. 18 of 2026; Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh; transfer order 30.06.2025; relieving order 16.12.2025; Senior Veterinary Officer; Veterinary Hospital Barsur, Dantewada; Nephritic Syndrome; medical grounds for transfer; children's education mid academic session; Transfer Policy committee; representation to be decided in 04 weeks; stay of transfer order; SK. Nausad Rahaman (2022) 12 SCC 1; Director of School Education (1994) Supp (2) SCC 666; writ petition disposed 07/01/2026; Parth Prateem Sahu.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a detailed representation before the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy within 10 days; the committee to decide objectively within 04 weeks of receipt; order of transfer to remain stayed till decision on the representation.

Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue setting aside the relieving order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the transfer order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) transferring the petitioner to Veterinary Hospital, Barsur, District Dantewada. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a detailed representation raising all the grounds raised in the writ petition before the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy within 10 days.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

On submission of the representation, the committee under the Transfer Policy shall consider and take a decision on it in an objective manner, keeping a pragmatic approach, within a further period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶34

Key takeaways

Till decision is taken on the representation, the order of transfer of the petitioner shall remain stayed.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), single Judge (Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), order dated 07/01/2026 in WPS No. 18 of 2026 — Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma, Senior Veterinary Officer posted at Block Kasdole, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, challenged his transfer to Veterinary Hospital, Barsur, District Dantewada (transfer order dated 30.06.2025, Annexure P-2) and consequent relieving order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), pressing humanitarian grounds: his 13-year-old son suffers from Nephritic Syndrome with continuous treatment since 2019, better treatment being available near Raipur/Durg/Bhilai/Mahasamund while Barsur is an interior tribal area, and his two children studying in Class 8 and Class 6 face examinations in February-March mid-session. Counsel relied on SK. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1, and Director of School Education, Madras v. O. Karuppa Thevan, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 666. State counsel objected that the petitioner had made no representation to the committee contemplated by the Transfer Policy. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Transfer Policy committee within 10 days, the committee to take an objective, pragmatic decision within 04 weeks of receipt, and ordering that the transfer order remain stayed until such decision.

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2026:CGHC:847

¶3

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 18 of 2026

¶6

NAFR

¶7

Dr. Lokesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Makhan Lal Verma Aged About 44 Years Presently Working As Senior, Veterinary Officer, Block- Kasdole, DistrictBalodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Veterinary, Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Deputy Secretary Veterinary Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

Director Veterinary Development Department Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

Deputy Director Veterinary Services District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. C.Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

ORDER ON BOARD

¶18

07/01/2026

¶19

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus settingaside the order dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been relieved on the basis of the order dated 30.06.2025 from Block Kasdole, District Baloda-BazarBhatapara to Veterinary Hospital Barsur, District Dantewada and the order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

petitioner has been transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Barsur, District Dantewada.

¶23

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petitioner to work in the present place of posting ie., Block Kasdole, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara.

¶24

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Senior Veterinary Officer and posted at Block Kasdole, District Baloda BazarBhatapara. Pursuant to order Annexure P-2 petitioner is transferred to Veterinary Hospital, Barsur, District Dantewada. He contended that according to his information petitioner was initially not relieved due to typographical error in the order in the initial place of posting and without making correction in the order of transfer, petitioner has been relieved now. He contended that son of petitioner is suffering from Nephritic Syndrome since 2019 and his continuous treatment is going on. He submits that better treatment is available near the place of posting of petitioner ie., Raipur, Durg, Bhilai, Mahasamund etc. The transferred place of posting ie., Barsur is an interior tribal area where proper medical facilities for treatment of the disease like the petitioner’s son is suffering from, may not be available and therefore, if the petitioner has to join the place of posting, it will adversely affect the health of his son. He contended that children of the petitioner are studying in school and petitioner has been transferred in the midst of academic session and if the petitioner has to join the place of posting it will adversely affect career of his children also. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the decision in case of SK. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others reproted in (2022) 12 SCC 1 and Director of School Education, Madras and others vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and another reported in ( 1994) Supp (2) SCC 666 . It is also submitted that the committee constituted under the Transfer Policy has considered similar nature of

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

grievance of one Rajendra Kumar Verma, whose son was also suffering from similar nature of disease as the son of petitioner suffering and the committee has interdicted the order and recommended for accepting the representation submitted by the applicant therein.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that in the transfer policy there is specific mention of the constitution of committee for considering the grievance of employees against their transfer. Petitioner has not submitted any representation before the Committee and straight away filed this writ petition and therefore no relief as prayed for can be granted to him.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the objection raised by learned State counsel, petitioner may be permitted to submit detailed representation before the committee and the concerned committee be directed to take decision within specified time. He submits that as, at the place of posting of petitioner, no other person is posted and therefore till decision is taken on his representation, petitioner may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Petitioner along with writ petition has enclosed medical documents of his son wherein son of petitioner Yashneil Verma aged about 13 years, is mentioned to be taking treatment of Nephritic Syndrome. Further submission of counsel for petitioner is that two of the children of petitioner are studying in Class-8th and Class-6th in Ahilya International School, Balodabazar. Normally the examination of the school are to be held in the month of February-March and only two months are remaining for the examination of the children of petitioner.

¶32

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a representation raining all the grounds as raised in this writ petition before the committee constituted under

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

the Transfer Policy, within a period of 10 days from today. In the event, petitioner submits the representation as discussed above, the concerned committee under the Transfer Policy shall consider and take decision on it in an objective manner, keeping pragmatic approach, within a further period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of representation.

¶35