Allowed¶29

Chhail Bihari Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh

Transfer – Transfer Policy, 2025, Clause 3.12

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2026WPS/5614/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 5614 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 24/07/2026 by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. Transfer of an employee due to retire within one year (March, 2027) in disregard of Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025; no administrative exigency disclosed, no substitute posted; judicial interference warranted where transfer contradicts governing policy without justification; transfer order dated 11.07.2026 (Nagar Palika Parishad, Kurud to Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari) quashed; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2026 is quashed and set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioner. ¶29

Chhail Bihari Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2026 is quashed and set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioner.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer order dated 11.07.2026, issued when the petitioner had less than one year of service remaining before his retirement in March, 2027, contravenes Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 and is liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 stipulates that an employee having less than one year of service left before retirement should not ordinarily be transferred.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Deviation from Clause 3.12 is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and such deviation must be supported by reasons founded on administrative exigency.

¶27

Key takeaways

In the present case, the respondents disclosed neither any compelling administrative exigency nor any reason in the impugned order for deviating from the policy, and the record does not reveal that any substitute was posted in place of the petitioner.ratio¶27
Although transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has the prerogative to transfer its employees, where the transfer is contrary to the governing policy without any justification or discernible administrative exigency, judicial interference is warranted.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer — Transfer Policy, 2025, Clause 3.12 — employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kurud due to retire in March, 2027 transferred by order dated 11.07.2026 to Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari — Clause 3.12 bars ordinary transfer of employees with less than one year of service left before retirement; deviation permissible only in exceptional circumstances supported by reasons founded on administrative exigency — respondents disclosed no compelling administrative exigency, impugned order gave no reason for deviation, and no substitute was posted — transfer contrary to governing policy without justification or discernible administrative exigency warrants judicial interference despite transfer being an incidence of service — writ petition allowed; transfer order quashed and set aside in so far as it related to the petitioner.

CGHC010280912026

2026:CGHC:31707

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5614 of 2026

¶7

Chhail Bihari Nag S/o Samay Lal Nag, Aged About 61 Years R/o Purana Bazar Chowk Kurud, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2 - The Director, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 - The Collector District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Nagar Palik Parishad Kurud Through Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palik Parisad Kurud, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)

¶14

5 - Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.)

¶15

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate
For State/Respondents No.1 to 3	: Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional AG
	alongwith Ms. Apurva Nigam, PL
For Respondent Nos.5	: Mr. PankajAgrawal, Advocate

¶16

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

24/07/2026

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.07.25 12:25:23 +0530

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 11.07.2026, whereby he has been transferred from Nagar

¶21

¶22

Palika Parishad, Kurud to Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad, Kurud and is due to retire in the month of March, 2027, i.e., within less than one year from the date of issuance of the impugned transfer order. It is contended that as per the Transfer Policy, 2025, an employee who is to retire within one year should ordinarily not be transferred. Reliance has been placed upon Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025, which specifically provides that an employee having less than one year of service left before retirement shall not ordinarily be transferred. It is further submitted that there is no administrative exigency reflected in the impugned order, nor has any substitute been posted in place of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner is an employee of Nagar Palika Parishad and could not have been transferred to Municipal Corporation, which is a different establishment. The petitioner has also pleaded that his aged mother is undergoing medical treatment and his transfer at the fag end of service would cause undue hardship.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents support the impugned order.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner is admittedly due to retire in the month of March, 2027. The impugned transfer order has been issued on 11.07.2026, when the petitioner had less than one year of service remaining.

¶26

¶27

Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 clearly stipulates that an employee having less than one year of service left before retirement should not ordinarily be transferred. Though the policy permits deviation in exceptional circumstances, such deviation must be supported by reasons founded on administrative exigency. In the present case, the respondents have neither disclosed any compelling administrative exigency nor does the impugned order indicate any reason for deviating from the policy. The record further does not reveal that any substitute has been posted in place of the petitioner.

¶28

It is well settled that although transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has the prerogative to transfer its employees, where the transfer is contrary to the governing policy without any justification or discernible administrative exigency, judicial interference is warranted.

¶29

In the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the impugned transfer order has been passed in disregard of Clause 3.12 of the Transfer Policy, 2025 and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned transfer order dated 11.07.2026, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed and set aside.

¶30

SD/-

¶31

( Bibhu Datta Guru ) JUDGE

¶32

ashu

Chhail Bihari Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhail Bihari Nag 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

Ganesh Manjhi Vs Union of India

Smriti Khara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Prasad Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shilpi Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Noman Prasad Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh