Guman Singh Diwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2696

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 481 of 2026

¶6

1 - Guman Singh Diwan S/o Late Shri Budhsan Diwan Aged About 52 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted And Working As Revenue Inspector, Tahsil Office Farasgaon, Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Land Records, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Collector Kondagaon Distt. Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - Nagendra Singh Revenue Inspector, Posted At Office Of Collector (Land Records Wing) Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

(The cause title is taken from CIS)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy.G.A.

¶16

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶18

16/01/2026

¶19

The petitioner has filled this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 15.12.2025, passed by the Transfer Committee constituted of Senior Secretaries.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 30.06.2025,bearing No.ESTB.102/338/2025-REVENUE/P-7, passed by respondent No.1.

¶22

2

¶23

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case”

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Revenue Inspector and vide order dated 30.06.2025, he was transferred from office of Collector, Land Records, Kondagaon to office of Collector, Land Records, Sukma. Petitioner aggrieved with his transfer has submitted representation before the Committee constituted under transfer policy raising the grounds that petitioner is suffering with fatty liver disease and is taking continuous treatment. Wife of petitioner is also working as Lab Technologist at Komaldeo District Hospital, Kanker, therefore, place of transfer of petitioner may be rescheduled to nearby place to Kanker, however, representation submitted by petitioner has been rejected. He also submits that according to policy of the State Government, husband and wife are to be posted at the same place.

¶25

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner is posted in the office of Collector, Land Record, Kondagaon since 2018 and thereby he has completed maxim tenure of his posting at one place. She however, contended that Clause 3.13 which is part of the transfer policy can not be claimed as matter of right. The policy is formulated by the State Government for its own convenience.

¶26

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

¶27

To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, perusal of documents enclosed along with writ petition would show that petitioner has not specifically stated as to when he was posted at the

¶28

3

¶29

present place of posting and since when he was being working. Perusal of transfer order Annexure P-2 dated 30.06.2025 would show that along with petitioner 58 other similarly situated employees have also been transferred on administrative exigency. Petitioner is holding a transferable post, he cannot claim as a matter of right to be posted at a particular place. Transfer of petitioner cannot be said to be a frequent transfer. Petitioner is holding transferable post and transfer is an exigency of service.

¶30

Further submission of counsel for petitioner that the according to Clause 3.13 of the Transfer Policy husband and wife, who are in Government service, are to be posted at one place, is also not sustainable because Clause 3.13 talks of if the wife/husband of a government servant requests a posting at the same station, efforts should be made to provide them with a posting at the same station, keeping administrative convenience and public interest in mind. No government servant will have the right to receive such a posting, but his/her request will be considered sympathetically by the department and a decision will be made.

¶31

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(1991) Supp. (2) SCC 659] has considered the issue with regard to transfer of the government servant and held thus:

¶32

“4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.

¶33

4

¶34

Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.”

¶35

In the case of Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357], Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-

¶36

“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, the husband and the wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.”

¶37

In the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors Vs. Durgesh Kuwar

¶38

[(2020) 19 SCC 46]. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the transfer of the senior officer of different sector banking institution has observed thus :-

¶39

“ 17 . We must begin our analysis of the rival submissions by adverting to the settled principle that transfer is an exigency of service. An employee cannot have a choice of postings. Administrative circulars and guidelines are indicators of the manner in which the transfer policy has to be implemented. However, an administrative circular may not in itself confer a

¶40

5

¶41

vested right which can be enforceable by a writ of mandamus. Unless an order of transfer is established to be malafide or contrary to a statutory provision or has been issued by an authority not competent to order transfer, the Court in exercise of judicial review would not be inclined to interfere. These principles emerge from the judgments which have been relied upon by the appellants in support of their submissions and to which we have already made a reference above. There can be no dispute about the position in law.”

¶42

Petitioner could not able to make out a case that his transfer is in violation of statutory rules, or of mala fide. The policy framed for transfer is not to be read as statute. In the impugned order of transfer total 58 employees of the department have been transferred on administrative exigency.

¶43

Considering the aforementioned facts of the case, decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of transfer Annexure P-2 so far as it relates to petitioner. Writ petition being sans merit is is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. However this order will not come in the way of petitioner to submit representation by petitioner before appropriate authority for posting of husband and wife at one place.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶47

Balram

Guman Singh Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guman Singh Diwan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalini Vishal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Kumar Pandey Vs Shri Avinash Champawat

Parmeshwar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bishambhar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayanidhi Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkishore Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh