Dismissed¶¶32

Kaushal Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service Law – Transfer

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2026WPS/5393/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 5393 of 2026; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; decided 16/07/2026. Keywords: transfer; additional charge; In-charge Block Education Officer Bhagbahara; Librarian Central Library Raipur; reversion to parent cadre; Transfer Policy 2025; retirement 30.09.2026; no vested right; accommodation of private respondent; Article 226; no mala fide; pension and retiral benefits direction; Kaushal Kumar Verma; Devnarayan Diwan; Mahasamund; School Education Department.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit; however, respondents directed to ensure no unnecessary delay in processing the petitioner's pension papers and releasing his retiral benefits, in accordance with law, after his retirement. ¶¶32

Kaushal Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026 and the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026, directing the petitioner to join his substantive post of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur, suffer from illegality, arbitrariness or mala fides, or were made to accommodate the private respondent No.4. +1 more

¶¶31

Court's answer

The petitioner substantively belongs to the cadre of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur and held only the additional charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara; the impugned order merely directed him to join his substantive post, the charge being withdrawn and assigned to another officer.

¶¶28

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the transfer was made to accommodate the private respondent is not substantiated by any cogent material placed on record.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Imminent retirement on 30.09.2026 creates no vested right in the petitioner's favour to continue on the charge of Block Education Officer, particularly when he has been directed to join his parent cadre; there is no violation of the Transfer Policy, 2025 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶30
No illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide is found in the impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) or the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2).ratio¶¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service Law – Transfer – Petitioner, working as In-charge Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara (Distt. Mahasamund), challenged the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) reverting him to his substantive post of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur, and the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2). Held: the petitioner had held only the additional charge of BEO since 27.07.2021 on administrative exigency; the impugned order merely withdrew that charge and directed him to join his parent cadre. Allegation that the transfer accommodated the private respondent No.4 was unsupported by cogent material. Imminence of retirement on 30.09.2026 confers no vested right to retain the charge, and no violation of the Transfer Policy, 2025 was found warranting interference under Article 226. No illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide in the impugned orders. Writ petition dismissed, with a direction to process pension papers and release retiral benefits without unnecessary delay.

CGHC010271692026

2026:CGHC:30205

NAFR

SOURABH BHILWAR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.17 11:48:27 +0530

¶8

WPS No. 5393 of 2026

¶9

Kaushal Kumar Verma S/o Vishal Kumar Verma Aged About 61 Years Posted As In charge Block Education Officer, Block Bhagbahara, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

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

¶13

2 - Under Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

3 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Devnarayan Diwan Posted In The Office Of Block Education Officer, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Waquar Naiyer, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate

¶19

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

16/07/2026

¶23

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Under Secretary, School Education Department and further seeks quashment of the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is presently working as In-charge Block Education Officer (BEO), Bhagbahara, District Mahasamund, has challenged the transfer order dated 10.06.2026 whereby he has been transferred to the post of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur on the ground of administrative exigency. He submits that the petitioner was assigned the charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara vide order dated 27.07.2021 and has been discharging his duties without any complaint or adverse remark. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer has been made only to accommodate the private respondent No.4 and the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.09.2026 and, therefore, in view of the Transfer Policy, 2025, he ought not to have been transferred at the verge of his retirement. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned transfer order and the consequential relieving order be quashed.

¶25

¶26

Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the substantive post of the petitioner is Librarian, Central Library, Raipur. He submits that the petitioner was merely entrusted with the additional charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara in the year 2021 on account of administrative exigency and, by the impugned order, he has only been directed to join his parent cadre. He further submits that the petitioner is a resident of District Raipur and no prejudice would be caused to him by such posting. So far as the petitioner's contention regarding his imminent retirement is concerned, learned State counsel submits that there shall be no difficulty in processing and finalizing the petitioner's pension papers and other retiral benefits. Hence, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner substantively belongs to the cadre of Librarian, Central Library, Raipur. It is also not in dispute that he was merely entrusted with the charge of Block Education Officer, Bhagbahara vide order dated 27.07.2021 on account of administrative exigency only. By the impugned order dated 10.06.2026, the petitioner has only been directed to join in his substantive post and by withdrawing the charge of Block Education Officer from the petitioner, the same has been assigned to another officer.

¶29

¶30

The contention of the petitioner that the transfer has been made to accommodate the private respondent is not substantiated by any cogent material placed on record. Merely because the petitioner is due to retire on 30.09.2026 would not create any vested right in his favour to continue on the charge of Block Education Officer, particularly when he has been directed to join in his parent cadre. This Court also does not find any violation of the Transfer Policy, 2025 warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness or mala fide in the impugned transfer order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) or the consequential relieving order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P/2).

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed . However, the respondents are directed to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay in processing the pension papers and releasing the retiral benefits of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after his retirement.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶35

$. Bhilwar

Kaushal Kumar Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kumar Verma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Umre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Chanda Bahesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Sharma Vs Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Director General

Dhaniyaram Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Priyanka Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh