Jagdish Chandra Panda vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors

Narendra Kumar Vyas, J

Heard Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Anil Pandey, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State.

The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2875/2026 (Jagdish Chandra Panda vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Court with the following prayer:-

"i. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the W.P. (S) No. Writ Petition (S) No. 2875/2026.

ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2875/2026.

iii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 and order dated 01.09.2025 passed by which the Respondents have rejected the objection to the transfer of the petitioner.

iv. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

v. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and proper."

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Pharmacist at CHC Bhairamgarh, District Bijapur, Bhairamgarh to CHC Bhopalpatnam on administrative grounds, whereas respondent No.05 was transferred from CHC Bhopalpatnam to CHC Bhairamgarh on request basis and at his own expense. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, both the petitioner and respondent No.05 preferred separate writ petitions, namely WPS No.7623/2025 and WPS No.7619/2025 respectively, which were disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 18.07.2025 with a direction to approach the Transfer Committee. Thereafter, both parties submitted representations along with a consent affidavit expressing willingness to continue at their existing places of posting; however, the Transfer Committee rejected the petitioner's representation vide order dated 01.09.2025 holding that the transfer order did not violate the Transfer Policy, 2025. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.08.2025, respondent No.05 was permitted to continue at CHC Bhopalpatnam, i.e., the very place where the petitioner had been transferred, while the petitioner was allegedly coerced to join the transferred place despite respondent No.05 not being relieved. The petitioner, who is also suffering from medical ailments, further contends that his salary for certain periods has been unlawfully withheld by the respondent authorities.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the Transfer Policy, 2025, inasmuch as though the Bhopalpatnam vide order dated 30.06.2025, respondent No.05 has subsequently been permitted to continue at CHC Bhopalpatnam vide order dated 29.08.2025 despite there being only one sanctioned post of Pharmacist at the said place, while the petitioner is being coerced to join there. It is submitted that respondent No.05 had originally sought transfer to District Kanker on request basis, however, he was transferred to CHC Bhairamgarh and thereafter again allowed to continue at his earlier place of posting, thereby showing undue favour to him. Learned counsel would further submit that under Clauses 1.3 and 3.7 of the Transfer Policy, a request transfer can only be made upon a joint application of both employees and an employee posted in a Scheduled Area cannot be relieved until his reliever joins, whereas in the present case no joint application was submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.05 and respondent No.05 himself has not been relieved. It is also argued that the Transfer Committee rejected the petitioner's representation vide order dated 01.09.2025 in a mechanical and non-speaking manner without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and the said order was never communicated to him until 19.03.2026 during proceedings in WPS No.2362/2026, which reflects lack of transparency and arbitrary conduct on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel also submits that despite the petitioner suffering from medical ailments and continuing in by the respondents; therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, in which no interference is called for.

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

From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the material available on record, it is not pleaded in the writ appeal that the appellant has not completed the minimum tenure fixed by the State Government for consideration of transfer and, therefore, it is to be presumed that the appellant has already completed the prescribed tenure at the present place of posting. The impugned transfer order dated 30.06.2025 clearly demonstrates that the transfer of the appellant has been made on administrative grounds. It is well settled that transfer is an incident of service and a government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SK. Naushad Rahaman & Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 2022 (12) SCC, 1, has held that no government servant can insist to remain posted at a exclusive domain of the employer. Unless a transfer order is shown to be mala fide or contrary to any statutory provision, interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. In the present case, except alleging violation of the Transfer Policy, no material has been brought on record to establish mala fides or violation of any statutory provision.

So far as the grievance of the appellant regarding respondent No.05 being permitted to continue at CHC Bhopalpatnam is concerned, the record would show that respondent No.5 was temporarily permitted to continue at the earlier place of posting considering his medical condition and, therefore, it cannot be said that his transfer order was cancelled. Considering the settled principles governing transfer and posting and also considering that the appellant has already remained posted at the present place for about three and a half years, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present writ appeal.

So far as the grievance of the appellant regarding unpaid salary is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the same deserves consideration by the competent authority. Accordingly, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 of the impugned order shall remain intact and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the appellant regarding unpaid salary in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ appeal stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.