Shri Purushottam Singh Bhalavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21615

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3996 of 2026

¶6

SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed bySHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.05.09 10:55:53 +0530

¶7

Shri Purushottam Singh Bhalavi S/o Panna Lal Aged About 42 Years Occupation Deputy Ranger, R/o Bagdaipara Ward No. 17, In Front Of I.T.I., Acholi, Dongargarh, Rajnandgaon, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, Post And Ps Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Raipur, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Forest Division OfÏcer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶14

2

¶15

5 - The Divisional Forest OfÏcer Mohla, Forest Division Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - Sunil Kumar Sharma Designation Forester, Forest Division, Mohla, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki Chhattisgarh

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Rishabh Bisen, Advocate appears
	through Video Conferencing.
For	: Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl.
Respondents/State	Advocate General

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

08.05.2026

¶23

By the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the

¶24

following reliefs:-

¶25

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent authorities to place the petitioner where he was posted prior to passing of order dated 22.04.2026 (Annexure P/1).

¶26

10.2 This Hon'ble Court be further Pleased to pass Such order in Favour of the petitioner against the respondent as it may

¶27

deem fit under the facts and circumstances

¶28

3

¶29

10.3 Costs of the petition may be allowed.”

¶30

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2026, whereby the petitioner, who is presently posted on the post of Deputy Ranger in Mohla Forest Division, has been allotted the work of Forest Godam (Timber Depot) Sector In-charge from the ofÏce of Assistant Divisional OfÏcer, Devwadiya, on administrative grounds and looking to the excess work load within the Division.

¶31

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as a Forest Guard on 28.05.2004, promoted to the post of Forester in 2013, and thereafter to Deputy Ranger in 2022. During his service, he worked in various ranges and forest divisions and is presently serving in Mohla Forest Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest issued a circular dated 31.10.2015 directing that transfer, attachment, or work allotment of forest employees should ordinarily not be made at the divisional level and, wherever necessary, proposals should be sent to the State Government

¶32

4

¶33

(b) It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid circular, the petitioner has repeatedly been shifted through work allotment orders within a short span of time. By order dated 17.07.2025, he was allotted duties at Assistant Forest Range OfÏcer, Kohka Sub-Division; thereafter, by order dated 25.07.2025, he was shifted to Devwadiya Sub-Region, Chouki Region; and subsequently, by the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, he was again assigned duties as Forest Godam (Timber Depot) Sector In-charge. It is contended that such repeated changes in posting are arbitrary, contrary to the circular dated 31.10.2015, and liable to be quashed.

¶34

Learned State counsel submits that the work allotted to the petitioner was because of administrative exigency and there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the respondents.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶36

From perusal of the circular dated 31.10.2015, it appears that the said circular mainly provides guidelines regarding transfer and attachment of forest employees and requires that unnecessary transfers should be avoided and proper

¶37

5

¶38

procedure be followed. However, it does not appear that allotment of work within the same Forest Division by the competent Divisional Forest OfÏcer has been completely prohibited.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the petitioner continues to remain within Mohla Forest Division and has not been transferred outside the Division. The impugned order merely allots different work to the petitioner within the same Division looking to administrative requirement and work exigency. The Divisional Forest OfÏcer, being head of the Division, is competent to distribute and allot work amongst the employees posted within the Division for smooth administrative functioning.

¶40

It is a settled law in the matter of Union of India and others v.

¶41

S.L.. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357 , wherein it has been

¶42

observed by the Supreme Court that transfer is an incidence of Government service. Who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it.

¶43

6

¶44

In the present case, except alleging violation of the circular dated 31.10.2015, no statutory violation or mala fide has been demonstrated by the petitioner. Considering the administrative exigency and the work requirement within Mohla Forest Division, this Court does not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.04.2026, so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶45

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves

¶46

to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶47

sd/-

¶48

(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶49

Shoaib

Shri Purushottam Singh Bhalavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Purushottam Singh Bhalavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjana Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tej Kumar Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Shukla Vs Shri Ajit Vasant

Khido Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Seraphinus Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithilesh Prasad Vs P.S. Mishra